OsteoarthritisRPDNCT00651625
Reciprocating Medical Devices - a Study of a New Safety Device
A study testing Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001 and conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604 in people with Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis, run by University of New Mexico at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Trauma
- What is being tested?
- Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001 and conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 437 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Nov 2004to Aug 2010
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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
- A syringe and needle procedure is required for the normal customary care of the patient
Who cannot join
- hemorrhagic diathesis,
- use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents child or susceptible population
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Trial of the Reciprocating Procedure Device Versus the Conventional Syringe in Syringe-and-Needle Procedures
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe and needle procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the RPD with one arm with and without ultrasound guidance. The RPD is designed to be safer, faster, less painful, and more effective for the patient, and the mechanics of the RPD are intended to provide the physician with better needle control, resulting in less needle trauma to patient tissues, and thus, reduced bleeding and pain for the patient. This clinical trial will address whether the RPD is indeed superior to the conventional syringe for shots, injections, and needle procedures, and whether it is a safer, less painful syringe.
Read the detailed description
- BACKGROUND
The syringe is an ancient device designed principally to inject medications. However, because of the inherent biomechanics of the human hand and the interaction of the hand with the piston, the syringe is very stable and easily controlled the injection phase, but is extremely unstable and difficult to control in the aspiration phase. New reciprocating technology that accommodates the biomechanics of hand function has great promise of improving the stability and safety of hand-held devices, including procedure syringes.
- EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures accomplished either with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP). Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the reciprocating syringe. The following syringe procedures will be studied: 1) local anesthesia, 2) centesis (arthrocentesis, paracentesis, thoracentesis, amniocentesis, pericardiocentesis), 3) aspiration and puncture (aspiration of bursa, cyst, abscess, shunt, bone marrow, and other syringe aspiration procedures), 4) injection of a therapeutic or diagnostic substance into a joint, bursa, vessel, or other body structure, 5) fine needle biopsy with syringe vacuum of a mass or tissue, 6) irrigation procedures (wound, bladder, and other irrigation procedures), and 7) vascular access (introduction of a wire, catheter, or sheath into a blood vessel), and 8) with and without ultrasound guidance.
In a subject with multiple individual procedure sites, or requires multiple separate biopsies, each will be randomized between the two syringes, and each biopsy or fluid sample will be analyzed separately (as is medically appropriate). The physicians who will perform the syringe procedures will be those physicians who usually perform the syringe procedures and are credentialed to do so. Outcome data collection will occur first by one of the investigators observing the procedure and collecting the data by real time interview and by chart review including cost analysis. Outcome data will include effectiveness (preprocedural pain, pain at 2 weeks post procedure, and pain at 6 months postprocedure), procedure time, patient pain, operator satisfaction, trauma to tissues, complications, diagnostic yield, overall medical care costs and hospital stay. Retrospective review of 30 charts of the device used clinically has also been approved (2006). Analysis of data will be performed by a statistician blinded to treatment group.
*SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed study will be the first to study the clinical performance characteristics of a medical device that incorporates the new reciprocating technology designed to take advantage of the inherent biomechanical stability characteristics of the human hand. The preclinical studies presented in the preliminary data demonstrate markedly enhanced device performance characteristics, and much greater control and stability, strongly suggesting that reciprocating devices will be safer, more effective, more economical, and provide better patient outcomes.
- Conditions
- Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Trauma, Thyroid Nodule, Cancer
- Being tested
- Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001, conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604
- Keywords
- arthrocentesis, injections, anesthesia, biopsy, aspiration, syringe, safety, pain
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoarthritis, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Wounds and Injuries, Thyroid Nodule, Neoplasms, Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001Device
Also called AVANCA RPD
The RPD is a safety syringe device that is hypothesized to be safer, less painful, and more effective for patients undergoing a syringe and needle procedure (please see arm #1).
conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604Device
Also called syringe, conventional syringe, traditional syringe
the conventional syringe or the RPD will be used for syringe and needle procedures performed by physicians.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | The intervention is the use of the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) (AVANCA Re No. 1091001) (intervention) (Arm 1) with and without ultrasound guidance (intervention) in a syringe and needle procedure in comparison to a conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) (control, Arm 2). Receives: Device: Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001 |
| 2 | Active comparator | The conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) is used to performed the syringe and needle procedure and outcome (effect of procedure (pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months compared to preprocedural pain scores), and procedural pain (pain scores during procedure) are determined) and compared to Arm 1. Receives: Device: conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)
0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= no pain, and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the primary outcome measure.
Measured: 2 weeks
Secondary outcomes (3)
Aspirated Fluid Volume
Aspirated fluid volume during procedure
Measured: during procedure
Adverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)
Measured: during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards
Physician Satisfaction
0- 10 cm visual analogue satisfaction scale (VASS)
0-10 cm VASS at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VASS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= completely dissatisfied, and 10 = completely satsified. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the outcome measure
Measured: during procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Apr 2008 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2004
- Primary completionJan 2010
- Study completionAug 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for OsteoarthritisStudies 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
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 437 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of New Mexico
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Wilmer L Sibbitt, Jr., MD, Principal investigator, University of New Mexico
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00651625
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HRRC 04-347
- Other IDs
- HRRC 04-347, 04-347
- Acronym
- RPD
- Status last verified
- Feb 2016
- First submitted
- 21 Mar 2008
- Last updated
- 2 Mar 2016
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt WL Jr. Reciprocating procedure device for thyroid cyst aspiration and ablative sclerotherapy. J Laryngol Otol. 2009 Mar;123(3):343-5. doi: 10.1017/S0022215108003551. Epub 2008 Sep 17.
PubMed 18796180Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr, Palmer DJ, Bankhurst AD. Needle aspiration of peritonsillar abscess with the new safety technology: the reciprocating procedure device. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Aug;139(2):307-9. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.04.003. No abstract available.
PubMed 18656735Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt WL Jr. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008 Oct-Nov;42(5):446-55. doi: 10.1177/1538574408318479. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
PubMed 18583303Moorjani GR, Bedrick EJ, Michael AA, Peisajovich A, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Integration of safety technologies into rheumatology and orthopedics practices: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jul;58(7):1907-14. doi: 10.1002/art.23499.
PubMed 18576358Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Bankhurst AD, Sibbitt WL Jr. Integration of new safety technologies for needle aspiration of breast cysts. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Mar;279(3):285-92. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0710-8. Epub 2008 Jun 21.
PubMed 18568356Moorjani GR, Michael AA, Peisajovich A, Park KS, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Patient pain and tissue trauma during syringe procedures: a randomized controlled trial. J Rheumatol. 2008 Jun;35(6):1124-9. Epub 2008 Apr 15.
PubMed 18412301Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr, Nunez SE, Kettwich LG, Kettwich SC, Bankhurst AD. Control and performance characteristics of eight different suction biopsy devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Oct;17(10):1657-69. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000236837.47302.8E.
PubMed 17057008Gerstein NS, Martin HB, Toma, G MD; Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr.. Central venous access with the new safety technology the reciprocating procedure device. Journal Clinical Anesthesiology 2008 (In Press).
Bankhurst AD, Nunez SE, Draeger HT, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Sibbitt WL Jr. A randomized controlled trial of the reciprocating procedure device for intraarticular injection of corticosteroid. J Rheumatol. 2007 Jan;34(1):187-92.
PubMed 17143968Nunez SE, Draeger HT, Rivero DP, Kettwich LG, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Reduced pain of intraarticular hyaluronate injection with the reciprocating procedure device. J Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Feb;13(1):16-9. doi: 10.1097/01.rhu.0000256280.85507.bd.
PubMed 17278943Nunez SE, Bedrick EJ, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Bankhurst AD, Sibbitt WL Jr. A randomized, controlled trial of the reciprocating procedure device for local anesthesia. J Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):119-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.08.060. Epub 2008 Feb 20.
PubMed 18281176Draeger HT, Twining JM, Johnson CR, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Bankhurst AD. A randomised controlled trial of the reciprocating syringe in arthrocentesis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006 Aug;65(8):1084-7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2005.045781. Epub 2005 Dec 8.
PubMed 16339287Sander O. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections with the reciprocating procedure device reduced procedural pain and duration more than the conventional syringe. Evid Based Med. 2007 Aug;12(4):106. doi: 10.1136/ebm.12.4.106. No abstract available.
PubMed 17885154Sibbitt W Jr, Sibbitt RR, Michael AA, Fu DI, Draeger HT, Twining JM, Bankhurst AD. Physician control of needle and syringe during aspiration-injection procedures with the new reciprocating syringe. J Rheumatol. 2006 Apr;33(4):771-8. Epub 2006 Mar 1.
PubMed 16511940Park KS, Peisajovich A, Michael AA, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Should local anesthesia be used for arthrocentesis and joint injections? Rheumatol Int. 2009 Apr;29(6):721-3. doi: 10.1007/s00296-008-0785-3. Epub 2008 Nov 27. No abstract available.
PubMed 19037606
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Mar 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Trial of the Reciprocating Procedure Device Versus the Conventional Syringe in Syringe-and-Needle Procedures
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00651625
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RPD / HRRC 04-347
- Conditions
- Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Trauma, Thyroid Nodule, Cancer
- Keywords
- arthrocentesis, injections, anesthesia, biopsy, aspiration, syringe, safety, pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 437 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of New MexicoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2004
- Primary completion
- Jan 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Apr 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 2 Mar 2016
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe and needle procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the RPD with one arm with and without ultrasound guidance. The RPD is designed to be safer, faster, less painful, and more effective for the patient, and the mechanics of the RPD are intended to provide the physician with better needle control, resulting in less needle trauma to patient tissues, and thus, reduced bleeding and pain for the patient. This clinical trial will address whether the RPD is indeed superior to the conventional syringe for shots, injections, and needle procedures, and whether it is a safer, less painful syringe.
Detailed description
- BACKGROUND
The syringe is an ancient device designed principally to inject medications. However, because of the inherent biomechanics of the human hand and the interaction of the hand with the piston, the syringe is very stable and easily controlled the injection phase, but is extremely unstable and difficult to control in the aspiration phase. New reciprocating technology that accommodates the biomechanics of hand function has great promise of improving the stability and safety of hand-held devices, including procedure syringes.
- EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures accomplished either with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP). Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the reciprocating syringe. The following syringe procedures will be studied: 1) local anesthesia, 2) centesis (arthrocentesis, paracentesis, thoracentesis, amniocentesis, pericardiocentesis), 3) aspiration and puncture (aspiration of bursa, cyst, abscess, shunt, bone marrow, and other syringe aspiration procedures), 4) injection of a therapeutic or diagnostic substance into a joint, bursa, vessel, or other body structure, 5) fine needle biopsy with syringe vacuum of a mass or tissue, 6) irrigation procedures (wound, bladder, and other irrigation procedures), and 7) vascular access (introduction of a wire, catheter, or sheath into a blood vessel), and 8) with and without ultrasound guidance.
In a subject with multiple individual procedure sites, or requires multiple separate biopsies, each will be randomized between the two syringes, and each biopsy or fluid sample will be analyzed separately (as is medically appropriate). The physicians who will perform the syringe procedures will be those physicians who usually perform the syringe procedures and are credentialed to do so. Outcome data collection will occur first by one of the investigators observing the procedure and collecting the data by real time interview and by chart review including cost analysis. Outcome data will include effectiveness (preprocedural pain, pain at 2 weeks post procedure, and pain at 6 months postprocedure), procedure time, patient pain, operator satisfaction, trauma to tissues, complications, diagnostic yield, overall medical care costs and hospital stay. Retrospective review of 30 charts of the device used clinically has also been approved (2006). Analysis of data will be performed by a statistician blinded to treatment group.
*SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed study will be the first to study the clinical performance characteristics of a medical device that incorporates the new reciprocating technology designed to take advantage of the inherent biomechanical stability characteristics of the human hand. The preclinical studies presented in the preliminary data demonstrate markedly enhanced device performance characteristics, and much greater control and stability, strongly suggesting that reciprocating devices will be safer, more effective, more economical, and provide better patient outcomes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Device: Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001The intervention is the use of the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) (AVANCA Re No. 1091001) (intervention) (Arm 1) with and without ultrasound guidance (intervention) in a syringe and needle procedure in comparison to a conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) (control, Arm 2). |
| 2 | Active comparator | Device: conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604The conventional syringe (BD Ref 309604) is used to performed the syringe and needle procedure and outcome (effect of procedure (pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months compared to preprocedural pain scores), and procedural pain (pain scores during procedure) are determined) and compared to Arm 1. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- A syringe and needle procedure is required for the normal customary care of the patient
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- hemorrhagic diathesis,
- use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents child or susceptible population
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001Also: AVANCA RPDThe RPD is a safety syringe device that is hypothesized to be safer, less painful, and more effective for patients undergoing a syringe and needle procedure (please see arm #1). | Device | 1 |
| conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604Also: syringe, conventional syringe, traditional syringethe conventional syringe or the RPD will be used for syringe and needle procedures performed by physicians. | Device | 2 |
Primary outcome
Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)
Time frame: 2 weeks
0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= no pain, and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the primary outcome measure.
3 secondary outcomes
Aspirated Fluid Volume
Time frame: during procedure
Adverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)
Time frame: during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards
Physician Satisfaction
Time frame: during procedure
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Mar 2016.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 18796180Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt WL Jr. Reciprocating procedure device for thyroid cyst aspiration and ablative sclerotherapy. J Laryngol Otol. 2009 Mar;123(3):343-5. doi: 10.1017/S0022215108003551. Epub 2008 Sep 17.
- Background: PubMed 18656735Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr, Palmer DJ, Bankhurst AD. Needle aspiration of peritonsillar abscess with the new safety technology: the reciprocating procedure device. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Aug;139(2):307-9. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.04.003. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 18583303Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt WL Jr. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008 Oct-Nov;42(5):446-55. doi: 10.1177/1538574408318479. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
- Background: PubMed 18576358Moorjani GR, Bedrick EJ, Michael AA, Peisajovich A, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Integration of safety technologies into rheumatology and orthopedics practices: a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jul;58(7):1907-14. doi: 10.1002/art.23499.
- Background: PubMed 18568356Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Bankhurst AD, Sibbitt WL Jr. Integration of new safety technologies for needle aspiration of breast cysts. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Mar;279(3):285-92. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0710-8. Epub 2008 Jun 21.
- Background: PubMed 18412301Moorjani GR, Michael AA, Peisajovich A, Park KS, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Patient pain and tissue trauma during syringe procedures: a randomized controlled trial. J Rheumatol. 2008 Jun;35(6):1124-9. Epub 2008 Apr 15.
- Background: PubMed 17057008Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr, Nunez SE, Kettwich LG, Kettwich SC, Bankhurst AD. Control and performance characteristics of eight different suction biopsy devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006 Oct;17(10):1657-69. doi: 10.1097/01.RVI.0000236837.47302.8E.
- BackgroundGerstein NS, Martin HB, Toma, G MD; Sibbitt RR, Sibbitt WL Jr.. Central venous access with the new safety technology the reciprocating procedure device. Journal Clinical Anesthesiology 2008 (In Press).
- Results publication: PubMed 17143968Bankhurst AD, Nunez SE, Draeger HT, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Sibbitt WL Jr. A randomized controlled trial of the reciprocating procedure device for intraarticular injection of corticosteroid. J Rheumatol. 2007 Jan;34(1):187-92.
- Results publication: PubMed 17278943Nunez SE, Draeger HT, Rivero DP, Kettwich LG, Sibbitt WL Jr, Bankhurst AD. Reduced pain of intraarticular hyaluronate injection with the reciprocating procedure device. J Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Feb;13(1):16-9. doi: 10.1097/01.rhu.0000256280.85507.bd.
- Results publication: PubMed 18281176Nunez SE, Bedrick EJ, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Bankhurst AD, Sibbitt WL Jr. A randomized, controlled trial of the reciprocating procedure device for local anesthesia. J Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;35(2):119-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.08.060. Epub 2008 Feb 20.
- Results publication: PubMed 16339287Draeger HT, Twining JM, Johnson CR, Kettwich SC, Kettwich LG, Bankhurst AD. A randomised controlled trial of the reciprocating syringe in arthrocentesis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006 Aug;65(8):1084-7. doi: 10.1136/ard.2005.045781. Epub 2005 Dec 8.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Osteoarthritis
Not yet recruiting
Holistic Healing for Knee Osteoarthritis
Knee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)
Active, not recruiting
Effectiveness of Therapeutic Exercises on Spinopelvic Mobility
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Hip
Recruiting
Effect of Anti-inflammatory Diet in Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis, Knee
Active, not recruitingPhase 2/3
Single vs Triple Hyaluronic Acid in Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis, Knee
Not yet recruiting
The Feasibility of a Virtual/Home-based OA Treatment Program in Older Adults With OA and Multimorbidity
Osteoarthritis of the 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.
Wilmer L Sibbitt, Jr., MD principal investigator
University of New Mexico
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Reciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001 and conventional syringe - BD Ref 309604 in people with Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis, run by University of New Mexico at 1 site 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 1 inclusion and 2 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 2 Mar 2016. 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 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. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 2 Mar 2016). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale) (time frame: 2 weeks). 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 NCT00651625, which also lists 24 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 2 Mar 2016; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.