Knee OsteoarthritisNCT04017533
Stability of Uncemented Medially Stabilized TKA
A study testing GMK Sphere TKR in people with Knee Osteoarthritis, run by Oslo University Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
Total joint replacement is an efficacious treatment for osteoarthritis of hips and knees. Both total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacements (THR) have excellent implant survivorship. However, patients' satisfaction is lower in TKR than THR. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- What is being tested?
- GMK Sphere TKR
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 31 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- 4 Sep 2021to 10 Oct 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 50 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients referred to Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål for knee replacement surgery will be included to this study for a total of 30 subjects.
Who cannot join
- 75 and more years of age at the time of surgery
- Use of walking aids because of other muscoloskeletal and neuromuscular problems
- Preoperative diagnosis other than osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, tumors)
- Obesity with BMI>35
- Lateral collateral ligament deficient knee
- Reduced bone quality in the proximal tibia before surgery
- Insufficient language to answer questionnaires in Norwegian
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: In Vivo Stability of an Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty With Medially Stabilized Design
Total joint replacement is an efficacious treatment for osteoarthritis of hips and knees. Both total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacements (THR) have excellent implant survivorship. However, patients' satisfaction is lower in TKR than THR. A possible cause of the discrepancy is the unnatural knee kinematics after TKR. Various implants designs have been developed to solve the problem. The most common fixation mode is cemented TKR with good survival up to 15 years. However, newer series in younger patients also have shown lasting survival with uncemented implants (Nilsson et al 2006, Prudhon et al. 2017). Among various different designs, medially stabilized total knee, which are designed to reproduce natural knee kinematics with medial ball-in-socked design, is a promising implant (Australian registry report 2018). Dynamically the medial pivot knee performs more naturally (Bragnazoli et al, 2019) compared to other designs. Most data for this design is available only for the cemented version. Up to now there is no safety study performed that confirms the stability over time for this implant with uncemented fixation.
In this study, we will therefore analyze the in vivo stability of an uncemented knee implant with medially stabilized design. Our study will contribute to the understanding of fixation and lead to safety to the patient.
Read the detailed description
Worldwide the number of patients requiring treatment for osteoarthritis is increasing (Kurtz et al. 2007). Especially the young population will increase within the group of patients for arthroplasty (Kurtz et. al. 2009). Learmonth describes hip arthroplasty as the "operation of the century" because patients are highly satisfied with pain relief and function after the procedure (Learmonth et al, 2007). Knee arthroplasties have in recent years also shown promising results and have surpassed hip arthroplasty in frequency in western countries. However, patient satisfaction is not as high (Dieppe et al. 2012, Carr et al, 2013). Reported problems are insufficient function (Hawker et al. 2013) and persistent pain (Wylde et al. 2012). On the other hand, knee arthroplasties are increasingly implanted in younger and more active patients (Rabi et al. 2012, Ibrahim et al. 2010) who require high function and quality of life. Improvement of knee implants is an urgent issue in the field of orthopedic research.
Knee Kinematics and implant designs
A possible cause of lower function of replaced knees is the unnatural postoperative knee kinematics. Kinematics of replaced knees is closely related to their function. For example, replaced knees with excellent flexion angles have kinematic similarities to normal knees (Watanabe et al. 2013) and malalignments of implants can cause postoperative pain (Bell et al. 2014).
Compared to hip joints, which are simple ball-and socket joints, the kinematics of knee joints is more complex. It is a combination of rolling and gliding motion of femoral condyles and rotation of tibia (Smith et al. 2003). Based on the kinematics of the normal knee joint, various attempts have been made on the design of knee implants to reconstruct normal kinematics after replacement surgery. In healthy knees the contributing anatomical structures for knee kinematics are two cruciate ligaments (anterior cruciate ligament; ACL, and posterior cruciate ligament; PCL) inside the joint (Figure. 1). However, in knees with osteoarthritis, ACL may be degenerated by inflammation and often not deserve retaining. Therefore, the majority of total knee implant designs sacrifices ACL. Instead, various attempts have been made on implant design to develop knee implants with increased stability.
One of the designs is PCL-retaining (CR) knee with extended posterior femoral radius in flexion to provide greater femoral/tibial contact area in high flexion. This implant design allows for PCL retention and theoretically enhances antero-posterior rollback. CR knees are widely used for many decades and various implants with this design are available. Although they have favorable clinical results in the point of survivorship (Chalidis et al. 2011), CR knees do not reproduce femoral rollback during flexion in vivo (Watanabe et al. 2013).
Another design is a medially stabilized knee, which has "ball-in-socket" medial femoro-tibial articulation to maintain anterior-posterior stability. The implants with this design concept are gaining popularity in clinical practice and their performances is under crude evaluation recently. Both cruciate ligaments are sacrificed in this arthroplasty and the characteristic geometry of femoral implant and polyethylene insert plays a key role in its stability. The implants on the market have been slightly altered in their design composition because of some inferior results. ,Bragnazoli et al (2019) showed that these implants have closer kinematics to normal knees. This might have the potential to achieve higher patient's satisfaction, lower polyethylene wear rate, and less migration in vivo compared to CR knees.
Analytical method of knee prosthesis
In this study we will employ radiostereometric analysis (RSA) method. The positions of implants are determined using tantalum markers inserted in the bones and implant models. Since 1970s, this method has been used in many orthopedic research fields and we already have performed many studies using RSA for the evaluations of fixation and wear of artificial joints (Øhrn et al. 2018, Petursson et al 2017,). The advantage of RSA method is its high accuracy of 0.1-0.2 mm for translations and 0.3 degrees for rotations (Garling et al. 2005) and less manual procedures in the analysis. Moreover, clinically relevant association between early migration of tibial implants detected by RSA and late revision for loosening has been reported (Pijls et al.2012, Molte et al 2016).
In an ongoing RSA study with cemented implants it is shown that migration analysis is feasible.
Recently low dose CT-based micromotion analysis (CTMA) appears to be a feasible tool for motion analysis of implants. Erikson has shown in a phantom study that motion analysis is feasible as it offers similar precision levels as the gold standard RSA (Eriksson et al 2019). Early results of clinical data are promising for implants in the shoulder (Broden et al. 2020) and in the hip (Otten et al 2017).
Fixation of Total Knee Replacement
Cemented fixation is the most widespread standard around the world and still regarded as the golden standard (Nugent et al 2019). It provides lasting fixation up to 15 - 20 years. Meanwhile it has been raised the question whether uncemented fixation could improve long time outcome in the demanding young patient (Nilsson et al. 2006, Wojtowicz et al 2019). Hybrid fixation has proven superior survival over cemented fixation in selected series (Petursson et al. 2015). Prudholm et al. (2017) showed 94% survival with uncemented implants with HA surface after 11 years. The theoretical advantages of cementless TKA are bone stock preservation, cement debris protection and the potential to achieve biologic fixation of the implant to the bone. Uncemented fixation is however, greatly depending on the implant surface and cannot be extrapolated from one implant surface to the other. Therefore a thorough clinical evaluation is needed for new surfaces.
Bone density
Good bone stock is essential for lasting fixation in uncemented TKA. Li et al (2000) found a relevant correlation between migration and preoperative bone density. Initial bone stock was restored 2 years after surgery. The initial bone seemed to be related to local activities at the interface, which may be surface dependent (Li et al. 2001). Also Andersen et al (2017) found a clear relation between migration of the tibia implant and bone stock.
The bone stock will be evaluated intraoperative by the surgeon by palpation and inspection.
Purpose of this study
The primary aim of this study is to analyze the in vivo stability over 2 years of a new uncemented medially stabilized knee arthroplasty design using static RSA. The data will be compared to known limits of safe migration (Pijls, Valstar et al. 2012) up to 2 years and with outcomes of the previously mentioned study in which the cemented version of the medially stabilized design was used (Øhrn F-D 2021). Secondary we want to validate CT-based micromotion analysis (CTMA) by comparing it to RSA.
- Conditions
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- Being tested
- GMK Sphere TKR
- Keywords
- Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), Total Knee Replacement (TKR), Radiostereometric Analysis, RSA, Medial Pivot, Medially stabilized, Medial pivoting, GMK Sphere, Global Medacta Knee Sphere
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoarthritis, Knee
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
GMK Sphere TKRProcedure or surgery
Se earlier
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| GMK Sphere | Experimental | Patients receive a cementless GMK Sphere Total Knee Replacement Receives: Procedure: GMK Sphere TKR |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
MTPM
Maximum Total Point Motion in mm
Measured: 2 years
Secondary outcomes (5)
Segmental RSA
X-Y-Z rotations and X-Y-Z translations in degrees and mm
Measured: 2 years
DEXA of the proximal tibia
Evaluation of bone quality of the proximal tobia
Measured: 2 years
Conventional radiography
Radiological evaluation with postoperative conventional radiograph and at 2 years for radiolucencies.
Full-length leg radiographs for evaluation of the axis of the lower extremity
Measured: 2 years
Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)
Clinical outcome. The FJS questionnaire takes approximately 90 seconds to complete and comprises 12 items concerning the patient's lack of awareness of the knee joint in everyday life.8 Higher scores represent a better result with a maximum score of 100.
From twelve questions with five response categories, a total score is calculated from 0 to 100 (high degree of being able to forget the joint in daily life). The average total score for knees is 75.0 points and 87.5 points for hips. In the age-specific and sex-specific groups, the lowest median score for knees was 54.2 points (men aged 18-39 years) and the highest median was 97.0 (men aged above 70 years). Similarly, median scores for hips were lowest in men aged 18-39 years (60.9 points) and highest in men aged above 70 years (100 points).
Measured: 2 years
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)
Clinical outcome: KOOS consists of 5 subscales; Pain, other Symptoms, Activites of Daily Living (ADL), Sport and Recreation Function (Sport/Rec) and knee-related Quality of Life (QOL). The previous week is the time period considered when answering the questions. Standardized answer options are given (5 Likert boxes) and each question is assigned a score from 0 to 4. A normalized score (100 indicating no symptoms and 0 indicating extreme symptoms) is calculated for each subscale. The five individual KOOS subscale scores are then given as secondary outcomes to enable clinical interpretation. Please see FAQ for further information on this procedure. The results of the 5 subscales can be plotted as an outcome profile (order of subscales from left to right: Pain, Symptoms, ADL, Sport/Rec and QOL), preferably in a graph with scores from 0-100 on the y-axis and the five subscales on the x-axis.
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jul 2019
- Study start4 Sep 2021
- Primary completion10 Oct 2024
- Study completion10 Oct 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (38)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Knee OsteoarthritisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Oslo University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- Single group diagnostic safety study of a medial pivot cementless knee implant. Diagnostic methods used are RSA and CT-RSA, to study the safety of a medial pivot cementless knee implant.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Oslo University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medacta International SA
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Stephan M Rohrl, Oslo University Hospital
- Investigators
- Stephan M Röhrl, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, CIRRO Oslo university hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04017533
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 424444-3
- Status last verified
- Nov 2025
- First submitted
- 10 Jul 2019
- Last updated
- 25 Nov 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Andersen MR, Winther NS, Lind T, Schroder HM, Flivik G, Petersen MM. Low Preoperative BMD Is Related to High Migration of Tibia Components in Uncemented TKA-92 Patients in a Combined DEXA and RSA Study With 2-Year Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2141-2146. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.032. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
PubMed 28410836Arliani GG, Astur DC, Moraes ER, Kaleka CC, Jalikjian W, Golano P, Cohen M. Three dimensional anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament: a new approach in anatomical orthopedic studies and a literature review. Open Access J Sports Med. 2012 Nov 12;3:183-8. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S37203. eCollection 2012.
PubMed 24198601Aunan E, Kibsgard T, Clarke-Jenssen J, Rohrl SM. A new method to measure ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty: laxity measurements in 100 knees. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Aug;132(8):1173-81. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1536-1. Epub 2012 May 13.
PubMed 22581351Australian Orthopaedic Association, Annual report, National registry, 2018.
Banks SA, Hodge WA. Accurate measurement of three-dimensional knee replacement kinematics using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996 Jun;43(6):638-49. doi: 10.1109/10.495283.
PubMed 8987268Bell SW, Young P, Drury C, Smith J, Anthony I, Jones B, Blyth M, McLean A. Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014 Jan;21(1):272-7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.011. Epub 2012 Nov 7.
PubMed 23140906Bragonzoni L, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bontempi M, Roberti di Sarsina T, Cardinale U, Alesi D, Iacono F, Neri MP, Zaffagnini S. New design total knee arthroplasty shows medial pivoting movement under weight-bearing conditions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1049-1056. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5243-5. Epub 2018 Oct 27.
PubMed 30368560Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2012 Apr 7;379(9823):1331-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
PubMed 22398175Chalidis BE, Sachinis NP, Papadopoulos P, Petsatodis E, Christodoulou AG, Petsatodis G. Long-term results of posterior-cruciate-retaining Genesis I total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2011 Nov;16(6):726-31. doi: 10.1007/s00776-011-0152-1. Epub 2011 Sep 10.
PubMed 21909722Dahl J, Snorrason F, Nordsletten L, Rohrl SM. More than 50% reduction of wear in polyethylene liners with alumina heads compared to cobalt-chrome heads in hip replacements: a 10-year follow-up with radiostereometry in 43 hips. Acta Orthop. 2013 Aug;84(4):360-4. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.810516. Epub 2013 Jun 25.
PubMed 23795579Dieppe P, Lim K, Lohmander S. Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis? Int J Rheum Dis. 2011 May;14(2):175-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-185X.2011.01611.x.
PubMed 21518317Garling EH, Kaptein BL, Geleijns K, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER. Marker Configuration Model-Based Roentgen Fluoroscopic Analysis. J Biomech. 2005 Apr;38(4):893-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.04.026.
PubMed 15713311Hawker GA, Badley EM, Borkhoff CM, Croxford R, Davis AM, Dunn S, Gignac MA, Jaglal SB, Kreder HJ, Sale JE. Which patients are most likely to benefit from total joint arthroplasty? Arthritis Rheum. 2013 May;65(5):1243-52. doi: 10.1002/art.37901.
PubMed 23459843Ibrahim T, Bloch B, Esler CN, Abrams KR, Harper WM. Temporal trends in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty surgery: results from a UK regional joint register, 1991-2004. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Apr;92(3):231-5. doi: 10.1308/003588410X12628812458572. Epub 2010 Mar 10.
PubMed 20223054Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.
PubMed 17403800
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Nov 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- In Vivo Stability of an Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty With Medially Stabilized Design
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04017533
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 424444-3
- Conditions
- Knee Osteoarthritis
- Keywords
- Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), Total Knee Replacement (TKR), Radiostereometric Analysis, RSA, Medial Pivot, Medially stabilized, Medial pivoting, GMK Sphere
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 31 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Oslo University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medacta International SA
- Study start
- 4 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Oct 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Jul 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Total joint replacement is an efficacious treatment for osteoarthritis of hips and knees. Both total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacements (THR) have excellent implant survivorship. However, patients' satisfaction is lower in TKR than THR. A possible cause of the discrepancy is the unnatural knee kinematics after TKR. Various implants designs have been developed to solve the problem. The most common fixation mode is cemented TKR with good survival up to 15 years. However, newer series in younger patients also have shown lasting survival with uncemented implants (Nilsson et al 2006, Prudhon et al. 2017). Among various different designs, medially stabilized total knee, which are designed to reproduce natural knee kinematics with medial ball-in-socked design, is a promising implant (Australian registry report 2018). Dynamically the medial pivot knee performs more naturally (Bragnazoli et al, 2019) compared to other designs. Most data for this design is available only for the cemented version. Up to now there is no safety study performed that confirms the stability over time for this implant with uncemented fixation.
In this study, we will therefore analyze the in vivo stability of an uncemented knee implant with medially stabilized design. Our study will contribute to the understanding of fixation and lead to safety to the patient.
Detailed description
Worldwide the number of patients requiring treatment for osteoarthritis is increasing (Kurtz et al. 2007). Especially the young population will increase within the group of patients for arthroplasty (Kurtz et. al. 2009). Learmonth describes hip arthroplasty as the "operation of the century" because patients are highly satisfied with pain relief and function after the procedure (Learmonth et al, 2007). Knee arthroplasties have in recent years also shown promising results and have surpassed hip arthroplasty in frequency in western countries. However, patient satisfaction is not as high (Dieppe et al. 2012, Carr et al, 2013). Reported problems are insufficient function (Hawker et al. 2013) and persistent pain (Wylde et al. 2012). On the other hand, knee arthroplasties are increasingly implanted in younger and more active patients (Rabi et al. 2012, Ibrahim et al. 2010) who require high function and quality of life. Improvement of knee implants is an urgent issue in the field of orthopedic research.
Knee Kinematics and implant designs
A possible cause of lower function of replaced knees is the unnatural postoperative knee kinematics. Kinematics of replaced knees is closely related to their function. For example, replaced knees with excellent flexion angles have kinematic similarities to normal knees (Watanabe et al. 2013) and malalignments of implants can cause postoperative pain (Bell et al. 2014).
Compared to hip joints, which are simple ball-and socket joints, the kinematics of knee joints is more complex. It is a combination of rolling and gliding motion of femoral condyles and rotation of tibia (Smith et al. 2003). Based on the kinematics of the normal knee joint, various attempts have been made on the design of knee implants to reconstruct normal kinematics after replacement surgery. In healthy knees the contributing anatomical structures for knee kinematics are two cruciate ligaments (anterior cruciate ligament; ACL, and posterior cruciate ligament; PCL) inside the joint (Figure. 1). However, in knees with osteoarthritis, ACL may be degenerated by inflammation and often not deserve retaining. Therefore, the majority of total knee implant designs sacrifices ACL. Instead, various attempts have been made on implant design to develop knee implants with increased stability.
One of the designs is PCL-retaining (CR) knee with extended posterior femoral radius in flexion to provide greater femoral/tibial contact area in high flexion. This implant design allows for PCL retention and theoretically enhances antero-posterior rollback. CR knees are widely used for many decades and various implants with this design are available. Although they have favorable clinical results in the point of survivorship (Chalidis et al. 2011), CR knees do not reproduce femoral rollback during flexion in vivo (Watanabe et al. 2013).
Another design is a medially stabilized knee, which has "ball-in-socket" medial femoro-tibial articulation to maintain anterior-posterior stability. The implants with this design concept are gaining popularity in clinical practice and their performances is under crude evaluation recently. Both cruciate ligaments are sacrificed in this arthroplasty and the characteristic geometry of femoral implant and polyethylene insert plays a key role in its stability. The implants on the market have been slightly altered in their design composition because of some inferior results. ,Bragnazoli et al (2019) showed that these implants have closer kinematics to normal knees. This might have the potential to achieve higher patient's satisfaction, lower polyethylene wear rate, and less migration in vivo compared to CR knees.
Analytical method of knee prosthesis
In this study we will employ radiostereometric analysis (RSA) method. The positions of implants are determined using tantalum markers inserted in the bones and implant models. Since 1970s, this method has been used in many orthopedic research fields and we already have performed many studies using RSA for the evaluations of fixation and wear of artificial joints (Øhrn et al. 2018, Petursson et al 2017,). The advantage of RSA method is its high accuracy of 0.1-0.2 mm for translations and 0.3 degrees for rotations (Garling et al. 2005) and less manual procedures in the analysis. Moreover, clinically relevant association between early migration of tibial implants detected by RSA and late revision for loosening has been reported (Pijls et al.2012, Molte et al 2016).
In an ongoing RSA study with cemented implants it is shown that migration analysis is feasible.
Recently low dose CT-based micromotion analysis (CTMA) appears to be a feasible tool for motion analysis of implants. Erikson has shown in a phantom study that motion analysis is feasible as it offers similar precision levels as the gold standard RSA (Eriksson et al 2019). Early results of clinical data are promising for implants in the shoulder (Broden et al. 2020) and in the hip (Otten et al 2017).
Fixation of Total Knee Replacement
Cemented fixation is the most widespread standard around the world and still regarded as the golden standard (Nugent et al 2019). It provides lasting fixation up to 15 - 20 years. Meanwhile it has been raised the question whether uncemented fixation could improve long time outcome in the demanding young patient (Nilsson et al. 2006, Wojtowicz et al 2019). Hybrid fixation has proven superior survival over cemented fixation in selected series (Petursson et al. 2015). Prudholm et al. (2017) showed 94% survival with uncemented implants with HA surface after 11 years. The theoretical advantages of cementless TKA are bone stock preservation, cement debris protection and the potential to achieve biologic fixation of the implant to the bone. Uncemented fixation is however, greatly depending on the implant surface and cannot be extrapolated from one implant surface to the other. Therefore a thorough clinical evaluation is needed for new surfaces.
Bone density
Good bone stock is essential for lasting fixation in uncemented TKA. Li et al (2000) found a relevant correlation between migration and preoperative bone density. Initial bone stock was restored 2 years after surgery. The initial bone seemed to be related to local activities at the interface, which may be surface dependent (Li et al. 2001). Also Andersen et al (2017) found a clear relation between migration of the tibia implant and bone stock.
The bone stock will be evaluated intraoperative by the surgeon by palpation and inspection.
Purpose of this study
The primary aim of this study is to analyze the in vivo stability over 2 years of a new uncemented medially stabilized knee arthroplasty design using static RSA. The data will be compared to known limits of safe migration (Pijls, Valstar et al. 2012) up to 2 years and with outcomes of the previously mentioned study in which the cemented version of the medially stabilized design was used (Øhrn F-D 2021). Secondary we want to validate CT-based micromotion analysis (CTMA) by comparing it to RSA.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Single group diagnostic safety study of a medial pivot cementless knee implant. Diagnostic methods used are RSA and CT-RSA, to study the safety of a medial pivot cementless knee implant.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| GMK Sphere | Experimental | Procedure: GMK Sphere TKRPatients receive a cementless GMK Sphere Total Knee Replacement |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients referred to Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål for knee replacement surgery will be included to this study for a total of 30 subjects.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- 75 and more years of age at the time of surgery
- Use of walking aids because of other muscoloskeletal and neuromuscular problems
- Preoperative diagnosis other than osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, tumors)
- Obesity with BMI>35
- Lateral collateral ligament deficient knee
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| GMK Sphere TKRSe earlier | Procedure or surgery | GMK Sphere |
Primary outcome
MTPM
Time frame: 2 years
Maximum Total Point Motion in mm
5 secondary outcomes
Segmental RSA
Time frame: 2 years
DEXA of the proximal tibia
Time frame: 2 years
Conventional radiography
Time frame: 2 years
Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)
Time frame: 2 years
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Nov 2025.
- Background: PubMed 28410836Andersen MR, Winther NS, Lind T, Schroder HM, Flivik G, Petersen MM. Low Preoperative BMD Is Related to High Migration of Tibia Components in Uncemented TKA-92 Patients in a Combined DEXA and RSA Study With 2-Year Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2141-2146. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.032. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
- Background: PubMed 24198601Arliani GG, Astur DC, Moraes ER, Kaleka CC, Jalikjian W, Golano P, Cohen M. Three dimensional anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament: a new approach in anatomical orthopedic studies and a literature review. Open Access J Sports Med. 2012 Nov 12;3:183-8. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S37203. eCollection 2012.
- Background: PubMed 22581351Aunan E, Kibsgard T, Clarke-Jenssen J, Rohrl SM. A new method to measure ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty: laxity measurements in 100 knees. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Aug;132(8):1173-81. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1536-1. Epub 2012 May 13.
- BackgroundAustralian Orthopaedic Association, Annual report, National registry, 2018.
- Background: PubMed 8987268Banks SA, Hodge WA. Accurate measurement of three-dimensional knee replacement kinematics using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996 Jun;43(6):638-49. doi: 10.1109/10.495283.
- Background: PubMed 23140906Bell SW, Young P, Drury C, Smith J, Anthony I, Jones B, Blyth M, McLean A. Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014 Jan;21(1):272-7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.011. Epub 2012 Nov 7.
- Background: PubMed 30368560Bragonzoni L, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bontempi M, Roberti di Sarsina T, Cardinale U, Alesi D, Iacono F, Neri MP, Zaffagnini S. New design total knee arthroplasty shows medial pivoting movement under weight-bearing conditions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1049-1056. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5243-5. Epub 2018 Oct 27.
- Background: PubMed 22398175Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2012 Apr 7;379(9823):1331-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
- Background: PubMed 21909722Chalidis BE, Sachinis NP, Papadopoulos P, Petsatodis E, Christodoulou AG, Petsatodis G. Long-term results of posterior-cruciate-retaining Genesis I total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2011 Nov;16(6):726-31. doi: 10.1007/s00776-011-0152-1. Epub 2011 Sep 10.
- Background: PubMed 23795579Dahl J, Snorrason F, Nordsletten L, Rohrl SM. More than 50% reduction of wear in polyethylene liners with alumina heads compared to cobalt-chrome heads in hip replacements: a 10-year follow-up with radiostereometry in 43 hips. Acta Orthop. 2013 Aug;84(4):360-4. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.810516. Epub 2013 Jun 25.
- Background: PubMed 21518317Dieppe P, Lim K, Lohmander S. Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis? Int J Rheum Dis. 2011 May;14(2):175-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-185X.2011.01611.x.
- Background: PubMed 15713311Garling EH, Kaptein BL, Geleijns K, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER. Marker Configuration Model-Based Roentgen Fluoroscopic Analysis. J Biomech. 2005 Apr;38(4):893-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.04.026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Knee Osteoarthritis
Not yet recruiting
Opioid Reduction and Enhanced Recovery in Orthopaedic Surgery (OREOS)-Knee
Knee Arthroplasty, Total, Partial Knee Arthroplasty
Active, not recruiting
SakuraBead Used as Resorbable Embolic for Genicular Artery Embolization
Osteo Arthritis Knee, Joint Diseases
RecruitingPhase 2
Genicular Artery Embolization for Reducing Pain in Medically Refractory Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis
Knee Osteoarthritis, Knee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)
Not yet recruiting
Comparison of High-Intensity and Conventional Physical Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders
Low Back Pain, Radicular Syndrome
Recruiting
The Effect of Different Exercise Training Programs on Muscle Oxygenation in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis of Knee
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Stephan M Röhrl, MD, PhD principal investigator
CIRRO Oslo university hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing GMK Sphere TKR in people with Knee Osteoarthritis, run by Oslo University Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Nov 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Norway. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
MTPM (time frame: 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04017533, which also lists 38 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Nov 2025.