ACL InjuryNCT04958733
Does Bone Grafting at the Time of Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone ACL Reconstruction Reduce the Incidence of Post-operative Anterior Knee Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study
A study testing Autologous bone grafting and Absence of autologous bone grafting in people with ACL Injury, run by Hartford Hospital at 3 sites in United States.
Trial summary
It is estimated that 48 out of 10,000 people, in the United States, will tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) annually and undergo ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Surgeons have several graft options, surgical techniques, and fixation methods to consider when planning how to reconstruct a patient's ACL. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- ACL Injury
- What is being tested?
- Autologous bone grafting and Absence of autologous bone grafting
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Sep 2021to Jun 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Males and females
- 18 years of age and older, with no upper age limit
- A candidate for primary autologous BPTB ACLR
- Willing to participate in the study
Who cannot join
- Concomitant ligamentous or chondral injury
- Prior surgery on the index knee
- Prior history of anterior knee pain or patellofemoral joint pain on the index knee
- Outerbridge classification > 2 assessed during arthroscopy
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
United States3 sites, 3 recruiting
- Recruiting
Bone and Joint Institute at Hartford Hospital
Hartford, Connecticut, 06106
Regina R Kostyun, MSEd, 860-972-2657, Regina.Kostyun@hhchealth.org
- Recruiting
Orthopedic Associates of Hartford
Hartford, Connecticut, 06106
Clifford Rios, MD, 860-549-8295, crios@oahctmd.com
Clifford Rios, MD
- Recruiting
PRISM Sports Medicine
Hartford, Connecticut, 06106
Carl Nissen, MD, 860-972-6688, Carl.Nissen@hhchealth.org
Carl Nissen, MD
About this study
It is estimated that 48 out of 10,000 people, in the United States, will tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) annually and undergo ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Surgeons have several graft options, surgical techniques, and fixation methods to consider when planning how to reconstruct a patient's ACL. Graft options vary greatly and include allografts and autografts with good evidence that are good choices. Further, autografts include several different specific grafts including; bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendons, and quadriceps tendon. There is no clear consensus on which graft type is superior, as each graft has associated positives and negatives.
Historically, autologous BPTB grafts have been the preferred choice of surgeons given its ability to restore rotational stability for the knee, the robust healing with direct bone-to-bone contact at both ends of the graft, and low failure rates. However, there are drawbacks to ACLR using a BPTB graft. Complications following BPTB graft harvesting include patella fractures, patellar tendon ruptures, increased risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis, lack of terminal extension, and donor-site morbidity. The majority of these complications are associated with low-risk rates, except for donor-site morbidity which may be prevalent in 37-51% of BPTB graft patients. Donor-site pain can manifest as anterior knee, patellofemoral pain, loss of sensory input, or discomfort with kneeling and can negatively influence subjective as well as objective measures of knee function.
Read more
Filling bony defects with bone graft is a procedure that is commonly conducted within orthopedics. However, its use in treating the bony defects caused during BPTB graft harvesting is less common as patella and tibial harvest sites are routinely left unfilled. Significant methodological differences in treatment interventions for the patella harvest site, the tibial harvest site, or both and conflicting results have made it difficult to determine if these treatments have clinical utility. To the best of the investigators' knowledge, there has been no investigation looking at the incidence of donor site morbidity treated with autologous bone grafting of the harvest sites. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine if filling the harvest site defect is associated with a lower rate of donor site morbidity and better patient reported functional outcomes compared to patients whose harvest site remains unfilled.
The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of donor site morbidity between patients who have their harvest sites bone grafted with autologous bone (BG) and those whose harvest sites remain unfilled (nBG).
- Conditions
- ACL Injury
- Being tested
- Autologous bone grafting, Absence of autologous bone grafting
- Medical subject headings
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Autologous bone graftingProcedure or surgery
Autologous bone grafting is the excess bone obtained from graft preparation and the coring reamer
Absence of autologous bone graftingProcedure or surgery
Donor sites will be left unfilled
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Autologous Bone Grafting | Active comparator | Excess bone obtained from graft preparation and the coring reamer will be used to fill the patellar and tibial donor sites. Receives: Procedure: Autologous bone grafting |
| Control | Placebo comparator | The control group will have their patellar and tibial defects remain unfilled. Receives: Procedure: Absence of autologous bone grafting |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Visual Analog Scale
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Measured: pre-op
Visual Analog Scale
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Measured: post-op month 6
Visual Analog Scale
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Measured: post-op month 12
Visual Analog Scale
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Measured: post-op month 24
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Measured: pre-op
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Measured: post-op month 6
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Measured: post-op month 12
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Measured: post-op month 24
Pain with Kneeling
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Measured: pre-op
Pain with Kneeling
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Measured: post-op month 6
Pain with Kneeling
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Measured: post-op month 12
Pain with Kneeling
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Measured: post-op month 24
Secondary outcomes (16)
PROMIS-10
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) will be used to assess global quality of health. The PROMIS Global-10 is a 10-item patient-reported questionnaire in which the response options are presented as 5-point (as well as a single 11-point) rating scales. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. These scores are then standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores indicate a healthier patient.
Measured: pre-op
PROMIS-10
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) will be used to assess global quality of health. The PROMIS Global-10 is a 10-item patient-reported questionnaire in which the response options are presented as 5-point (as well as a single 11-point) rating scales. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. These scores are then standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores indicate a healthier patient.
Measured: post-op month 6
PROMIS-10
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) will be used to assess global quality of health. The PROMIS Global-10 is a 10-item patient-reported questionnaire in which the response options are presented as 5-point (as well as a single 11-point) rating scales. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. These scores are then standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores indicate a healthier patient.
Measured: post-op month 12
PROMIS-10
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-10 (PROMIS-10) will be used to assess global quality of health. The PROMIS Global-10 is a 10-item patient-reported questionnaire in which the response options are presented as 5-point (as well as a single 11-point) rating scales. The results of the questions are used to calculate two summary scores: a Global Physical Health Score and a Global Mental Health score. These scores are then standardized to the general population, using the "T-Score". The average "T-Score" for the United States population is 50 points, with a standard deviation of 10 points. Higher scores indicate a healthier patient.
Measured: post-op month 24
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) subjective form will be used to assess knee-specific functional abilities. The IKDC is a patient-completed tool, which contains sections on knee symptoms (7 items), function (2 items), and sports activities (2 items). Scores range from 0 points (lowest level of function or highest level of symptoms) to 100 points (highest level of function and lowest level of symptoms).
Measured: pre-op
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) subjective form will be used to assess knee-specific functional abilities. The IKDC is a patient-completed tool, which contains sections on knee symptoms (7 items), function (2 items), and sports activities (2 items). Scores range from 0 points (lowest level of function or highest level of symptoms) to 100 points (highest level of function and lowest level of symptoms).
Measured: post-op month 6
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) subjective form will be used to assess knee-specific functional abilities. The IKDC is a patient-completed tool, which contains sections on knee symptoms (7 items), function (2 items), and sports activities (2 items). Scores range from 0 points (lowest level of function or highest level of symptoms) to 100 points (highest level of function and lowest level of symptoms).
Measured: post-op month 12
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKCD) subjective form will be used to assess knee-specific functional abilities. The IKDC is a patient-completed tool, which contains sections on knee symptoms (7 items), function (2 items), and sports activities (2 items). Scores range from 0 points (lowest level of function or highest level of symptoms) to 100 points (highest level of function and lowest level of symptoms).
Measured: post-op 24
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF) will be used to assess functional limitations due to patellofemoral joint pain. This will be necessary to evaluate as the BPBT graft is harvested from the patellar and may affect the function of the patellofemoral joint. KOOS-PF is an 11 item patient reported outcome, with each item rated as Never/none = 0, Monthly/mild = 1, Weekly/moderate = 2, Daily/severe = 3, Always/extreme = 4. The mean score is calculated for the 11 items, and divided by the maximum possible score for each item (i.e. 4). Traditionally in orthopedics, 100 indicates no problems and 0 indicates extreme problems. The normalized score is transformed to meet this standard.
Measured: pre-op
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF) will be used to assess functional limitations due to patellofemoral joint pain. This will be necessary to evaluate as the BPBT graft is harvested from the patellar and may affect the function of the patellofemoral joint. KOOS-PF is an 11 item patient reported outcome, with each item rated as Never/none = 0, Monthly/mild = 1, Weekly/moderate = 2, Daily/severe = 3, Always/extreme = 4. The mean score is calculated for the 11 items, and divided by the maximum possible score for each item (i.e. 4). Traditionally in orthopedics, 100 indicates no problems and 0 indicates extreme problems. The normalized score is transformed to meet this standard.
Measured: post-op month 6
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF) will be used to assess functional limitations due to patellofemoral joint pain. This will be necessary to evaluate as the BPBT graft is harvested from the patellar and may affect the function of the patellofemoral joint. KOOS-PF is an 11 item patient reported outcome, with each item rated as Never/none = 0, Monthly/mild = 1, Weekly/moderate = 2, Daily/severe = 3, Always/extreme = 4. The mean score is calculated for the 11 items, and divided by the maximum possible score for each item (i.e. 4). Traditionally in orthopedics, 100 indicates no problems and 0 indicates extreme problems. The normalized score is transformed to meet this standard.
Measured: post-op month 12
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF) will be used to assess functional limitations due to patellofemoral joint pain. This will be necessary to evaluate as the BPBT graft is harvested from the patellar and may affect the function of the patellofemoral joint. KOOS-PF is an 11 item patient reported outcome, with each item rated as Never/none = 0, Monthly/mild = 1, Weekly/moderate = 2, Daily/severe = 3, Always/extreme = 4. The mean score is calculated for the 11 items, and divided by the maximum possible score for each item (i.e. 4). Traditionally in orthopedics, 100 indicates no problems and 0 indicates extreme problems. The normalized score is transformed to meet this standard.
Measured: post-op month 24
Marx Activity Scale
The Marx Activity scale will be used to assess frequency and intensity of athletic participation. The Marx Scale consists of four questions concerning four activities or actions: running, cutting, deceleration, and pivoting. The patient or survey respondent is asked to report on the frequency with which they performed the activity in their healthiest state within the past year. The maximum score is 16 points, the closer the score is to 16 the higher the intensity and frequency of activity.
Measured: pre-op
Marx Activity Scale
The Marx Activity scale will be used to assess frequency and intensity of athletic participation. The Marx Scale consists of four questions concerning four activities or actions: running, cutting, deceleration, and pivoting. The patient or survey respondent is asked to report on the frequency with which they performed the activity in their healthiest state within the past year. The maximum score is 16 points, the closer the score is to 16 the higher the intensity and frequency of activity.
Measured: post-op month 6
Marx Activity Scale
The Marx Activity scale will be used to assess frequency and intensity of athletic participation. The Marx Scale consists of four questions concerning four activities or actions: running, cutting, deceleration, and pivoting. The patient or survey respondent is asked to report on the frequency with which they performed the activity in their healthiest state within the past year. The maximum score is 16 points, the closer the score is to 16 the higher the intensity and frequency of activity.
Measured: post-op month 12
Marx Activity Scale
The Marx Activity scale will be used to assess frequency and intensity of athletic participation. The Marx Scale consists of four questions concerning four activities or actions: running, cutting, deceleration, and pivoting. The patient or survey respondent is asked to report on the frequency with which they performed the activity in their healthiest state within the past year. The maximum score is 16 points, the closer the score is to 16 the higher the intensity and frequency of activity.
Measured: post-op month 24
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jul 2021
- Study start3 Sep 2021
- Primary completionJun 2023 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2024 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ACL InjuryStudies 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hartford Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04958733
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HHC-2021-0113
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 22 Jun 2021
- Last updated
- 5 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: We do not plan to share IPD with other researchers at this time.
Publications
Ahn JH, Kim JG, Wang JH, Jung CH, Lim HC. Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone: an analysis of the factors affecting the development of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2012 Aug;28(8):1114-23. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.12.019. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
PubMed 22421565Brown K, Solomon MJ, Young J, Seco M, Bannon PG. Addressing the ethical grey zone in surgery: a framework for identification and safe introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2019 Jun;89(6):634-638. doi: 10.1111/ans.15104. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
PubMed 30974516Brydone AS, Meek D, Maclaine S. Bone grafting, orthopaedic biomaterials, and the clinical need for bone engineering. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010 Dec;224(12):1329-43. doi: 10.1243/09544119JEIM770.
PubMed 21287823Cervellin M, de Girolamo L, Bait C, Denti M, Volpi P. Autologous platelet-rich plasma gel to reduce donor-site morbidity after patellar tendon graft harvesting for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized, controlled clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jan;20(1):114-20. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1570-5. Epub 2011 Jun 16.
PubMed 21678095Kartus J, Stener S, Lindahl S, Engstrom B, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Factors affecting donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5(4):222-8. doi: 10.1007/s001670050054.
PubMed 9430571Leathers MP, Merz A, Wong J, Scott T, Wang JC, Hame SL. Trends and Demographics in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the United States. J Knee Surg. 2015 Oct;28(5):390-4. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1544193. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
PubMed 25635874Mastrokalos DS, Springer J, Siebold R, Paessler HH. Donor site morbidity and return to the preinjury activity level after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using ipsilateral and contralateral patellar tendon autograft: a retrospective, nonrandomized study. Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jan;33(1):85-93. doi: 10.1177/0363546504265926.
PubMed 15611003Schandl K, Horvathy DB, Doros A, Majzik E, Schwarz CM, Csonge L, Abkarovits G, Bucsi L, Lacza Z. Bone-Albumin filling decreases donor site morbidity and enhances bone formation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Int Orthop. 2016 Oct;40(10):2097-2104. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3246-8. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
PubMed 27357530Walters BL, Porter DA, Hobart SJ, Bedford BB, Hogan DE, McHugh MM, Klein DA, Harousseau K, Nicholas SJ. Effect of Intraoperative Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment on Postoperative Donor Site Knee Pain in Patellar Tendon Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1827-1835. doi: 10.1177/0363546518769295. Epub 2018 May 9.
PubMed 29741923Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2015 Mar;22(2):100-10. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.11.014. Epub 2014 Dec 11.
PubMed 25547048
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does Bone Grafting at the Time of Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone ACL Reconstruction Reduce the Incidence of Post-operative Anterior Knee Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04958733
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HHC-2021-0113
- Conditions
- ACL Injury
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Hartford HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Sep 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2024 (estimated)
- First posted
- 12 Jul 2021 (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.
It is estimated that 48 out of 10,000 people, in the United States, will tear their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) annually and undergo ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Surgeons have several graft options, surgical techniques, and fixation methods to consider when planning how to reconstruct a patient's ACL. Graft options vary greatly and include allografts and autografts with good evidence that are good choices. Further, autografts include several different specific grafts including; bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendons, and quadriceps tendon. There is no clear consensus on which graft type is superior, as each graft has associated positives and negatives.
Historically, autologous BPTB grafts have been the preferred choice of surgeons given its ability to restore rotational stability for the knee, the robust healing with direct bone-to-bone contact at both ends of the graft, and low failure rates. However, there are drawbacks to ACLR using a BPTB graft. Complications following BPTB graft harvesting include patella fractures, patellar tendon ruptures, increased risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis, lack of terminal extension, and donor-site morbidity. The majority of these complications are associated with low-risk rates, except for donor-site morbidity which may be prevalent in 37-51% of BPTB graft patients. Donor-site pain can manifest as anterior knee, patellofemoral pain, loss of sensory input, or discomfort with kneeling and can negatively influence subjective as well as objective measures of knee function.
Filling bony defects with bone graft is a procedure that is commonly conducted within orthopedics. However, its use in treating the bony defects caused during BPTB graft harvesting is less common as patella and tibial harvest sites are routinely left unfilled. Significant methodological differences in treatment interventions for the patella harvest site, the tibial harvest site, or both and conflicting results have made it difficult to determine if these treatments have clinical utility. To the best of the investigators' knowledge, there has been no investigation looking at the incidence of donor site morbidity treated with autologous bone grafting of the harvest sites. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine if filling the harvest site defect is associated with a lower rate of donor site morbidity and better patient reported functional outcomes compared to patients whose harvest site remains unfilled.
The purpose of this study is to compare the rate of donor site morbidity between patients who have their harvest sites bone grafted with autologous bone (BG) and those whose harvest sites remain unfilled (nBG).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Autologous Bone Grafting | Active comparator | Procedure: Autologous bone graftingExcess bone obtained from graft preparation and the coring reamer will be used to fill the patellar and tibial donor sites. |
| Control | Placebo comparator | Procedure: Absence of autologous bone graftingThe control group will have their patellar and tibial defects remain unfilled. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Males and females
- 18 years of age and older, with no upper age limit
- A candidate for primary autologous BPTB ACLR
- Willing to participate in the study
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Concomitant ligamentous or chondral injury
- Prior surgery on the index knee
- Prior history of anterior knee pain or patellofemoral joint pain on the index knee
- Outerbridge classification > 2 assessed during arthroscopy
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Autologous bone graftingAutologous bone grafting is the excess bone obtained from graft preparation and the coring reamer | Procedure or surgery | Autologous Bone Grafting |
| Absence of autologous bone graftingDonor sites will be left unfilled | Procedure or surgery | Control |
Primary outcome
Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: pre-op
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: post-op month 6
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: post-op month 12
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: post-op month 24
The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 10-cm line that allows subjects to visually report their pain between "no pain" (0 cm) on the left and "constant pain" (10 cm) on the right. Patients will be asked to complete the VAS with the prompt, "Please indicate the amount of pain you are feeling right now in the front of your knee." It is considered a worse outcome the closer the patient marks to the "constant pain" on the right of the scale.
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Time frame: pre-op
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Time frame: post-op month 6
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Time frame: post-op month 12
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Direct Palpation of Harvest Site
Time frame: post-op month 24
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain' or 'sharp pain' during direct palpation for both the patella and tibial harvest sites. 'Sharp pain' is considered the worse outcome, 'mild pain' as a median outcome, and 'no pain' is considered the best outcome of the three.
Pain with Kneeling
Time frame: pre-op
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Pain with Kneeling
Time frame: post-op month 6
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Pain with Kneeling
Time frame: post-op month 12
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
Pain with Kneeling
Time frame: post-op month 24
Subjects will also be asked to kneel on the floor of the examination room and rate their pain as either 'no pain', 'mild pain', 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', or 'complete inability to kneel'. 'Complete inability to kneel' is considered the worst outcome within this measure, with the following considered increasing better outcomes in this order: 'unable to kneel on hard surface but able with cushion/pad', 'mild pain', 'no pain'.
16 secondary outcomes
PROMIS-10
Time frame: pre-op
PROMIS-10
Time frame: post-op month 6
PROMIS-10
Time frame: post-op month 12
PROMIS-10
Time frame: post-op month 24
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
Time frame: pre-op
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
Time frame: post-op month 6
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
Time frame: post-op month 12
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective form
Time frame: post-op 24
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
Time frame: pre-op
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
Time frame: post-op month 6
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
Time frame: post-op month 12
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Patellofemoral Pain (KOOS-PF)
Time frame: post-op month 24
Marx Activity Scale
Time frame: pre-op
Marx Activity Scale
Time frame: post-op month 6
Marx Activity Scale
Time frame: post-op month 12
Marx Activity Scale
Time frame: post-op month 24
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Aug 2022.
- Results publication: PubMed 22421565Ahn JH, Kim JG, Wang JH, Jung CH, Lim HC. Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone: an analysis of the factors affecting the development of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2012 Aug;28(8):1114-23. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.12.019. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
- Results publication: PubMed 30974516Brown K, Solomon MJ, Young J, Seco M, Bannon PG. Addressing the ethical grey zone in surgery: a framework for identification and safe introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2019 Jun;89(6):634-638. doi: 10.1111/ans.15104. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
- Results publication: PubMed 21287823Brydone AS, Meek D, Maclaine S. Bone grafting, orthopaedic biomaterials, and the clinical need for bone engineering. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010 Dec;224(12):1329-43. doi: 10.1243/09544119JEIM770.
- Results publication: PubMed 21678095Cervellin M, de Girolamo L, Bait C, Denti M, Volpi P. Autologous platelet-rich plasma gel to reduce donor-site morbidity after patellar tendon graft harvesting for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized, controlled clinical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jan;20(1):114-20. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1570-5. Epub 2011 Jun 16.
- Results publication: PubMed 9430571Kartus J, Stener S, Lindahl S, Engstrom B, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Factors affecting donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5(4):222-8. doi: 10.1007/s001670050054.
- Results publication: PubMed 25635874Leathers MP, Merz A, Wong J, Scott T, Wang JC, Hame SL. Trends and Demographics in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the United States. J Knee Surg. 2015 Oct;28(5):390-4. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1544193. Epub 2015 Jan 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 15611003Mastrokalos DS, Springer J, Siebold R, Paessler HH. Donor site morbidity and return to the preinjury activity level after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using ipsilateral and contralateral patellar tendon autograft: a retrospective, nonrandomized study. Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jan;33(1):85-93. doi: 10.1177/0363546504265926.
- Results publication: PubMed 27357530Schandl K, Horvathy DB, Doros A, Majzik E, Schwarz CM, Csonge L, Abkarovits G, Bucsi L, Lacza Z. Bone-Albumin filling decreases donor site morbidity and enhances bone formation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Int Orthop. 2016 Oct;40(10):2097-2104. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3246-8. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
- Results publication: PubMed 29741923Walters BL, Porter DA, Hobart SJ, Bedford BB, Hogan DE, McHugh MM, Klein DA, Harousseau K, Nicholas SJ. Effect of Intraoperative Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment on Postoperative Donor Site Knee Pain in Patellar Tendon Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1827-1835. doi: 10.1177/0363546518769295. Epub 2018 May 9.
- Results publication: PubMed 25547048Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2015 Mar;22(2):100-10. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.11.014. Epub 2014 Dec 11.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. We do not plan to share IPD with other researchers at this time.
Related trials for ACL Injury
Not yet recruiting
Stair Biomechanics and Vibration Study After ACLR
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR), Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury
Not yet recruiting
Supporting Athletes' Return to Sports After ACL Reconstruction: A Study of a Psychological Readiness Program
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
Recruiting
Graded Exposure and Mindfulness Meditation for Patients Post-ACL Reconstruction
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
Not yet recruiting
Clinical and Biological Outcomes of BioBrace-Augmented ACL Reconstruction
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Postoperative Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Recovery Quality
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.
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Autologous bone grafting and Absence of autologous bone grafting in people with ACL Injury, run by Hartford Hospital at 3 sites in United States.
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 4 inclusion and 4 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in United States. 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Regina O Kostyun, MSEd (860-972-2657, Regina.Kostyun@hhchealth.org), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Visual Analog Scale (time frame: pre-op). The study lists 12 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 NCT04958733, which also lists 10 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 5 Aug 2022.