NCT01483066

Brief Summary

The currently held belief is that total knee replacement (TKR) requires the restoration of the overall limb alignment to coincide with the mechanical limb axis. To align the knee implants with this mechanical axis, rods are used to orient cutting guides with the mechanical axis as defined by the center of the femoral head and talus. Standard surgical technique typically involves femoral and tibial rods with cutting blocks to facilitate the intraoperative alignment of the initial femoral and tibia bone cuts. This approach is the method used for the traditional TriathlonÒ instrumentation. The Patient Specific Cutting Guides are designed to offer an alternative for alignment rods. ShapeMatch Technology places a plastic cutting guide on the end of the femur and tibia, so that cuts that do not automatically default to the mechanical axis, but rather attempt to recreate the patient's anatomic alignment. The surgeon can then assess implant placement and adjust as necessary during pre-operative planning. Thus, Patient Specific Cutting Guides give the surgeon better control over the placement of the implants. This study will be a prospective, randomized evaluation of ShapeMatch Technology for primary TKR in a consecutive series of patients who meet the eligibility criteria. The clinical study will be accompanied by a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of one-year outcomes. One half of the cases enrolled will receive the Triathlon® Cruciate Retaining Total Knee System (Triathlon® CR) in a procedure using patient-specific cutting guides designed to reproduce the natural kinematic alignment of the knee. The other half of the cases will receive the Triathlon® CR device in a procedure using traditional instrumentation, without navigation, designed to produce a neutral mechanical alignment. Subjects will be evaluated using validated measures within 3 months prior to surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary Hypothesis: The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will be as cost-effective as usual care. Secondary Hypotheses: The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will result in improved clinical outcomes relative to usual care at three months postoperatively. The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will result in similar clinical outcomes relative to usual care at two-years postoperatively.

Trial Health

57
Monitor

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
38

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for phase_4

Timeline
Completed

Started Jun 2012

Typical duration for phase_4

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
terminated

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

November 25, 2011

Completed
6 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

December 1, 2011

Completed
6 months until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

June 1, 2012

Completed
3.1 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

June 26, 2015

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

June 26, 2015

Completed
Last Updated

July 28, 2021

Status Verified

July 1, 2021

Enrollment Period

3.1 years

First QC Date

November 25, 2011

Last Update Submit

July 23, 2021

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)

    The CEA will examine the cost of health care resources and health outcomes from the surgical intervention to 1-year postoperatively. The costs will include all health care utilization during this time. Health care utilization, and associated costs, related to the patients' condition, the surgery and adverse events of the surgery will be the basis of a sensitivity analysis. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) is the preferred measure for CEA. QALYs will be calculated based on the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). An objective outcome measure may be used for additional analysis.

    surgery to one year postoperatively

Secondary Outcomes (4)

  • Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)

    preoperative - 2 years postoperative

  • EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)

    preoperative to 2-years postoperative

  • University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale

    preoperative to 2-years postoperative

  • Forgotten Joint Score

    Imediate postoperative to 2 years postoperative

Study Arms (2)

ShapeMatch Instrumentation

EXPERIMENTAL
Device: ShapeMatch Technology

Usual Instrumentation

ACTIVE COMPARATOR
Device: ShapeMatch Technology

Interventions

ShapeMatch Technology places a plastic cutting guide on the end of the femur and tibia, so that cuts that do not automatically default to the mechanical axis, but rather attempt to recreate the patient's anatomic alignment.

ShapeMatch InstrumentationUsual Instrumentation

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 80 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Patient is a male or non-pregnant female age 18 to 80 years of age at the time of study device implantation.
  • Patient has primary diagnosis of Non-Inflammatory Degenerative Joint Disease (NIDJD).
  • Patient is a candidate for a primary total knee replacement (TKR).
  • Patient is willing and able to comply with preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) requirements, postoperative scheduled clinical and radiographic evaluations and rehabilitation.

You may not qualify if:

  • Patient has a Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 40.
  • Patient has a varus or valgus deformity greater than 10 degrees or flexion contracture greater than 20o.
  • Patient has an active or suspected latent infection in or about the affected joint at time of study device implantation.
  • Patient has received any orthopaedic surgical intervention to the lower extremities within the past year or is expected to require any orthopaedic surgical intervention to the lower extremities, other than the TKR to be enrolled in this study, within the next year.
  • Patient requires bilateral TKR, or has had a contralateral partial TKR or TKR.
  • Patient has any implanted device that would be incompatible with MRI procedures.
  • Patient has a neuromuscular or neurosensory deficiency, which limits the ability to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the device.
  • Patient is diagnosed with a systemic disease (e.g. Lupus Erythematosus) or a metabolic disorder (e.g. Paget's Disease) leading to progressive bone deterioration.
  • Patient is immunologically suppressed or receiving steroids in excess of normal physiological requirements(e.g. \> 30 days).
  • Patient requires revision surgery of a previously implanted total knee replacement or knee fusion to the affected joint.
  • Patient has a known sensitivity to device materials.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Alberta Health Services - Edmonton zone

Edmonton, Alberta, TG6 2B7, Canada

Location

Study Officials

  • Gordon Arnett, MD, FRCS (C)

    Alberta Health services

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Lauren Beaupre, PT, PhD

    University of Alberta

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
phase 4
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
SINGLE
Who Masked
OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Purpose
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

November 25, 2011

First Posted

December 1, 2011

Study Start

June 1, 2012

Primary Completion

June 26, 2015

Study Completion

June 26, 2015

Last Updated

July 28, 2021

Record last verified: 2021-07

Locations