Tibia Plateau FractureNCT04680247
Polyaxial Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Proximal Tibia Fractures
A study testing VA-LCP and NCB-PT in people with Tibia Plateau Fracture, run by Technical University of Munich.
Trial summary
From October 2013 28 patients with proximal tibia fractures (AO/ASIF 41 B-C) were included in this study. According to our treatment algorithm for this entity Patients were assigned into two groups and treated with different polyaxial locking plates (NCB-PT®, Zimmer vs. VA-LCP® Synthes). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 95 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Tibia Plateau Fracture
- What is being tested?
- VA-LCP and NCB-PT
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 28 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 5 Oct 2013to 1 Jan 2017
- 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 18 to 95 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- patients aged 25 to 82 with a proximal tibia fractures (AO/ OTA 41 B-C) and indication for locking plate osteosynthesis
Who cannot join
- Pathological fractures
- pregnancy
- adolescence (age <18 y)
- prisoners
- patients currently put under tutelage
About this study
Official title: Outcome After Polyaxial Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Proximal Tibia Fractures: a Prospective Clinical Trial
From October 2013 28 patients with proximal tibia fractures (AO/ASIF 41 B-C) were included in this study. According to our treatment algorithm for this entity Patients were assigned into two groups and treated with different polyaxial locking plates (NCB-PT®, Zimmer vs. VA-LCP® Synthes). After 12 months postoperative the investigators conducted clinical and radiological follow-ups.
Read the detailed description
Prior to the onset of the study, the approval by the medical ethics committee of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) (Trial Number: 5923/13) was obtained. During a period from October 2013 to December 2015 the investigators enrolled 28 patients aged 25 to 82 into our study. All patients suffered a fracture of the proximal tibia. The fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification. Every one of the 28 patients had an indication for locking plate osteosynthesis. The investigators included all type 41-B fractures and all type 41-C fractures. Pathological fractures, pregnancy, adolescence (age <18 y), prisoners and patients currently put under tutelage were excluded. The patients were scheduled for a locking plate osteosynthesis with either the NCB-PT® system or the VA-LCP® system. The discission was made by using our internal treatment algorithm for proximal tibia fractures. Age, bone quality, fracture configuration, allergies and distal fracture extension were among the criteria the investigators took into account to determine the plate type.
Surgical technique
The surgical technique was standardized, as far as possible. All surgeons agreed upon the following procedure. The anterolateral approach was used in all cases. Depending on the fracture type and the damaged column the standard approach was supplemented with either a posterolateral approach or a posteromedial approach. After arthrotomy and suturing of the lateral meniscus the fracture was reduced. This was performed under direct visual control of the joint surface and/or image intensifier. K-wires and/or a reduction forceps was used to secure the reduction. Afterwards the locking plate was inserted and temporarily fixed to the bone with K-wires. After checking the correct position of the plate with an image intensifier the screws were applied. In case of VA-LCP®, additional lag screws have been inserted at discretion of the surgeon. All patients received a perioperative single shot antibiotics. Our postoperative procedure consisted of a partial weight bearing for 6 weeks for all patients. Regarding the allowed range of motion the investigators distinguished two different groups: patient who received an arthrotomy and a refixation of the meniscus ought to comply with a limited range of motion for 6 weeks overall (week 1-2 30/0/0, week 3-4 60/0/0, week 5-6 90/0/0, week 7 free RoM). Patients with no arthrotomy were allowed free range of motion immediately after surgery.
Postoperative clinical and radiologic follow-up The investigators conducted the follow up after 12 months. The clinical evaluation was performed in our trauma outpatient clinic. With the help of standardized questionnaires, the investigators examined amongst others: the range of motion, cruciate ligament/ collateral ligament instability and meniscus signs to measure the clinical outcome. Also the investigators collected data from 5 different knee scoring systems, the Tegner score, the Rasmussen score (clinical part), the Oxford knee score the Munich knee questionnaire and the Lysholm score. To measure the patient satisfaction the investigators used the SF36 (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) Besides the clinical data the primary outcome measurements also included standardized, blinded radiological evaluation. The investigators conducted X-ray examinations in two plains (AP, lateral view) and examined them for signs of screw misplacement, primary/secondary loss of reduction, non-union and malalignment.
Statistics The statistical analysis was performed with the program GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). To check the data for standard distribution the investigators used the D'Agostino omnibus K2 test. For continuous parametric variables the investigators used the Student's t-test, for non-parametric variables the Mann-Whitney U test and for binominal variables the Fisher's exact test. In all analysis the significance level was set at a p-value <0,05, the investigators plotted the data as mean values ± SEM.
- Conditions
- Tibia Plateau Fracture
- Being tested
- VA-LCP, NCB-PT
- Keywords
- Proximal tibia fracture, clinical trial, polyaxial locking plate, outcome, osteosynthesis
- Medical subject headings
- Tibial Plateau Fractures
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VA-LCPProcedure or surgery
Surgery using the VA-LCP implant
NCB-PTProcedure or surgery
Surgery using the NCB-PT implant
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| VA-LCP | Active comparator | Osteosynthesis with a VA-LCP system Receives: Procedure: VA-LCP |
| NCB-PT | Active comparator | Osteosynthesis with a NCB-PT system Receives: Procedure: NCB-PT |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Rasmussen score
functionality and pain
Measured: 12 months
Tegner score
activity, functionality
Measured: 12 months
Rasmussen score (radiological part)
articular surface depression, condylar widening and fragment angulation
Measured: 12 months
Fracture healing
Categorized in accordance to the phases of bone healing: A = cloudy cortical edges and condensation (granulation phase), B = defined edges bridging, lamellar bone deposition, cartilage callus formation (reparative phase), C = remodelling to original bone contour (remodelling phase), D = non-union
Measured: 12 months
Lysholm score
functionality and pain
Measured: 12 months
Oxford knee score
functionality and pain
Measured: 12 months
Munich knee questionnaire
pain, daily life and sports activity, functionality
Measured: 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Dec 2020
- Study start5 Oct 2013
- Primary completion14 Dec 2016
- Study completion1 Jan 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Tibia Plateau FractureStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Parallel Assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Technical University of Munich
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dominik Völk, Technical University of Munich
- Investigators
- Peter Biberthaler, Prof, Study director, Technical University of Munich Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Trauma SurgeryMarc Hanschen, PD, Study chair, Technical University of Munich Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Trauma Surgery
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04680247
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 5923/13
- Status last verified
- Dec 2020
- First submitted
- 7 Dec 2020
- Last updated
- 22 Dec 2020
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Volk D, Neumaier M, Einhellig H, Biberthaler P, Hanschen M. Outcome after polyaxial locking plate osteosynthesis in proximal tibia fractures: a prospective clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Mar 18;22(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04158-z.
PubMed 33736638
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Dec 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Outcome After Polyaxial Locking Plate Osteosynthesis in Proximal Tibia Fractures: a Prospective Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04680247
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 5923/13
- Conditions
- Tibia Plateau Fracture
- Keywords
- Proximal tibia fracture, clinical trial, polyaxial locking plate, outcome, osteosynthesis
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Technical University of MunichUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Oct 2013 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Dec 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jan 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Dec 2020 (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.
From October 2013 28 patients with proximal tibia fractures (AO/ASIF 41 B-C) were included in this study. According to our treatment algorithm for this entity Patients were assigned into two groups and treated with different polyaxial locking plates (NCB-PT®, Zimmer vs. VA-LCP® Synthes). After 12 months postoperative the investigators conducted clinical and radiological follow-ups.
Detailed description
Prior to the onset of the study, the approval by the medical ethics committee of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) (Trial Number: 5923/13) was obtained. During a period from October 2013 to December 2015 the investigators enrolled 28 patients aged 25 to 82 into our study. All patients suffered a fracture of the proximal tibia. The fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification. Every one of the 28 patients had an indication for locking plate osteosynthesis. The investigators included all type 41-B fractures and all type 41-C fractures. Pathological fractures, pregnancy, adolescence (age <18 y), prisoners and patients currently put under tutelage were excluded. The patients were scheduled for a locking plate osteosynthesis with either the NCB-PT® system or the VA-LCP® system. The discission was made by using our internal treatment algorithm for proximal tibia fractures. Age, bone quality, fracture configuration, allergies and distal fracture extension were among the criteria the investigators took into account to determine the plate type.
Surgical technique
The surgical technique was standardized, as far as possible. All surgeons agreed upon the following procedure. The anterolateral approach was used in all cases. Depending on the fracture type and the damaged column the standard approach was supplemented with either a posterolateral approach or a posteromedial approach. After arthrotomy and suturing of the lateral meniscus the fracture was reduced. This was performed under direct visual control of the joint surface and/or image intensifier. K-wires and/or a reduction forceps was used to secure the reduction. Afterwards the locking plate was inserted and temporarily fixed to the bone with K-wires. After checking the correct position of the plate with an image intensifier the screws were applied. In case of VA-LCP®, additional lag screws have been inserted at discretion of the surgeon. All patients received a perioperative single shot antibiotics. Our postoperative procedure consisted of a partial weight bearing for 6 weeks for all patients. Regarding the allowed range of motion the investigators distinguished two different groups: patient who received an arthrotomy and a refixation of the meniscus ought to comply with a limited range of motion for 6 weeks overall (week 1-2 30/0/0, week 3-4 60/0/0, week 5-6 90/0/0, week 7 free RoM). Patients with no arthrotomy were allowed free range of motion immediately after surgery.
Postoperative clinical and radiologic follow-up The investigators conducted the follow up after 12 months. The clinical evaluation was performed in our trauma outpatient clinic. With the help of standardized questionnaires, the investigators examined amongst others: the range of motion, cruciate ligament/ collateral ligament instability and meniscus signs to measure the clinical outcome. Also the investigators collected data from 5 different knee scoring systems, the Tegner score, the Rasmussen score (clinical part), the Oxford knee score the Munich knee questionnaire and the Lysholm score. To measure the patient satisfaction the investigators used the SF36 (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) Besides the clinical data the primary outcome measurements also included standardized, blinded radiological evaluation. The investigators conducted X-ray examinations in two plains (AP, lateral view) and examined them for signs of screw misplacement, primary/secondary loss of reduction, non-union and malalignment.
Statistics The statistical analysis was performed with the program GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). To check the data for standard distribution the investigators used the D'Agostino omnibus K2 test. For continuous parametric variables the investigators used the Student's t-test, for non-parametric variables the Mann-Whitney U test and for binominal variables the Fisher's exact test. In all analysis the significance level was set at a p-value <0,05, the investigators plotted the data as mean values ± SEM.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Parallel Assignment
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| VA-LCP | Active comparator | Procedure: VA-LCPOsteosynthesis with a VA-LCP system |
| NCB-PT | Active comparator | Procedure: NCB-PTOsteosynthesis with a NCB-PT system |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 95 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- patients aged 25 to 82 with a proximal tibia fractures (AO/ OTA 41 B-C) and indication for locking plate osteosynthesis
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Pathological fractures
- pregnancy
- adolescence (age <18 y)
- prisoners
- patients currently put under tutelage
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VA-LCPSurgery using the VA-LCP implant | Procedure or surgery | VA-LCP |
| NCB-PTSurgery using the NCB-PT implant | Procedure or surgery | NCB-PT |
Primary outcome
Rasmussen score
Time frame: 12 months
functionality and pain
Tegner score
Time frame: 12 months
activity, functionality
Rasmussen score (radiological part)
Time frame: 12 months
articular surface depression, condylar widening and fragment angulation
Fracture healing
Time frame: 12 months
Categorized in accordance to the phases of bone healing: A = cloudy cortical edges and condensation (granulation phase), B = defined edges bridging, lamellar bone deposition, cartilage callus formation (reparative phase), C = remodelling to original bone contour (remodelling phase), D = non-union
Lysholm score
Time frame: 12 months
functionality and pain
Oxford knee score
Time frame: 12 months
functionality and pain
Munich knee questionnaire
Time frame: 12 months
pain, daily life and sports activity, functionality
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 22 Dec 2020.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33736638Volk D, Neumaier M, Einhellig H, Biberthaler P, Hanschen M. Outcome after polyaxial locking plate osteosynthesis in proximal tibia fractures: a prospective clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Mar 18;22(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04158-z.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Tibia Plateau Fracture
Not yet recruiting
Personalized Weight-Bearing With Smart Crutch Tips After Surgery for Tibial Plateau Fractures
Tibial Plateau Fracture
Recruiting
Comparison of Functional Outcome Between Locking Plate Technique Versus Hybrid Ilizarov Technique in Patients With Schatzker Type V and VI Tibial Plateau Fractures
Tibial Plateau Fracture
Recruiting
Continuous Passive Motion Following Fixation of Pelvic and Knee Fractures
Fractures, Bone
Enrolling by invitation
Gene Expression in Lower Extremity Acute Traumatic Compartment Syndrome
Tibial Shaft Fracture, Tibial Plateau Fracture
Active, not recruitingEarly Phase 1
Role of Multimodal Analgesia in Decreasing Perioperative Pain in Tibial Plateau Fractures
Tibial Plateau Fractures
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.
Peter Biberthaler, Prof study director
Technical University of Munich Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Trauma Surgery
Marc Hanschen, PD study chair
Technical University of Munich Klinikum rechts der Isar, Department of Trauma Surgery
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing VA-LCP and NCB-PT in people with Tibia Plateau Fracture, run by Technical University of Munich.
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 5 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 22 Dec 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Rasmussen score (time frame: 12 months). The study lists 7 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT04680247, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 22 Dec 2020.