AzTrials
AzTrials

OsteoarthritisNCT00678236

A Migration and Bone Density Study Comparing 2 Types of Bone Cement in the OptiPac Bone Cement Mixing System

A study testing Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in people with Osteoarthritis, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 70 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Osteoarthritis
What is being tested?
Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
54 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
Jun 2008to Jun 2012
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 70 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • primary or secondary knee osteoarthritis
  • sufficient bone quality for total knee arthroplasty
  • age above 70 years
  • no upper age limit if the patient is capable
  • informed and written consent
  • patient can only enter the project with one knee

Who cannot join

  • neuromuscular or vascular disease in the affected leg
  • preoperatively not found suitable for a knee arthroplasty
  • patients with osteoporosis based on former diagnosis or preoperative DEXA-scan
  • fracture sequelae or previous PTO or previous extensive knee surgery
  • patients with need of a stem-elongation
  • patients who cannot refrain from taking NSAID post-operatively
Show all 23Show fewer
  • continuous medical treatment with vitamin K antagonists (Warfarin) which is known to reduce the bon emineral density by a factor of 5
  • patients with metabolic bone disease
  • patients with rheumatoid arthritis
  • postmenopausal women in estrogenic hormone substitution
  • patients with a continuous need of systemic cortisone treatment
  • non-Danish citizenship
  • patients who do not comprehend the Danish language (read and speak)
  • senile dementia
  • alcoholism - defined as men drinking more than 21 units a week and women drinking more than 14 units a week
  • drug abuse
  • major psychiatric disease
  • metastatic cancer disease and treatment with radiation therapy or chemotherapy
  • severe systemic disease (e.g. hemi paresis and Parkinson disease)
  • systemic hip and spine disease
  • employee at the orthopaedic department, Aarhus University Hospital
  • ongoing case regarding industrial injury insurance of the knee
  • patients with poor dental status (risk of infection)

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Denmark1 site
  • Orthopaedic Center, Aarhus University Hospital

    Aarhus, 8000

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: A Migration and Bone Density Study Comparing Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in the OptiPac Bone Cement Mixing System. A Prospective Randomized Study on Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".

Read the detailed description

Loosening of prosthetic components continues to play a large role in total knee alloplasty (TKA) and need for revision. Osteolysis is an important part of prosthesis loosening, but we still do not completely understand the mechanism. Research has shown that mechanical factors such as weak bone cement and poor contact between cement/bone or cement/implant interphase contribute to loosening of implants. Survival of cemented TKA components also depend on a careful balancing of soft tissues around the knee, repair of lower extremity dislocations, design of the prosthesis and the level of patients' activities. Sclerosis of the proximal tibia can present a problem with regard to getting the cement to penetrate into the bone. Poor operative technique, such as high volume or high pressure lavage of the prepared bone surface, can result in reduced penetration of cement into the spongiosa and early failure of the prosthesis, measured as progressive radiolucent lines (RLLs). En tourniquet counter acts bleeding at the implant site and provides for better penetration of cement into the trabeculae of the bone. If the bone surface at the implantation site is contaminated with blood before the cement is applied, the shear strength in the bone/cement interphase can be reduced by up to 50%.

In prosthesis used in this study includes a tibial plateau with a central stem with stabilizing wings, the bottom surface of which is recessed by about 1 mm, so that a pocket is formed surrounded by a lip that provides for an even thickness of the cement layer beneath the tibial plateau. This assures that the cement is pressed down into the spongiosa during fixation of the implant. This design doubles the penetration of the cement compared with prostheses without a depressed baseplate. The company behind this design has had a successful follow-up of this system for more than 15 years. A good cement/implant interphase lessens the risk of penetration of debris into the interphase and thus reduces the risk for the development of osteolysis and aseptic loosening of the implant.

Fixation of knee alloplasties is done in 70% of cases with use of cement. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the long-term survival of knee prostheses with the two types of cement used in this project. Both types of cement in this study are used today in knee surgery with good, short-term clinical results. It is important to investigate new types of cement in order to assure future patients the best possible results after knee alloplasty and fewer re-operations.

The goal of this scientific study is to determine whether there are differences in early migration and prosthesis-near bone density when a standard knee prosthesis is fixed with Refobacin Bone Cement R or with Refobacin Plus Bone Cement. Migration will be evaluated with RSA and bone density around the prosthesis with DEXA. The study will be successful if the prosthesis is fixed and remains in place throughout the entire period of the study, that is, that there is no increasing migration as measured by RSA. The cement type that ensures the largest number of solidly fixed prostheses during the two-year evaluation period will be "the best".

Conditions
Osteoarthritis
Being tested
Refobacin Bone Cement R, Refobacin Plus Bone Cement
Keywords
RSA, Gonarthritis, Bone Cement
Medical subject headings
Osteoarthritis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Refobacin Bone Cement ROther

    Also called Biomet Europe: Refobacin Bone Cement R

    Insertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Bone Cement R

  • Refobacin Plus Bone CementOther

    Also called Biomet Europe: Refobacin Plus Bone Cement

    Insertion of a knee prosthesis fixed by Refobacin Plus Bone Cement

Study groups in NCT00678236
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
1Active comparatorRefobacin Bone Cement R
Receives: Other: Refobacin Bone Cement R
2Active comparatorRefobacin Plus Bone Cement
Receives: Other: Refobacin Plus Bone Cement

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Tibial implant migration evaluated by RSA

    Measured: 2013

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Comparison of Refobacin Bone Cement R vs. Refobacin Plus Bone Cement

    Measured: 2013

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted15 May 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2008
  3. Primary completionJun 2012
  4. Study completionJun 2012

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Diagnosis
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
54 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00678236
Sponsor's protocol ID
20070237
Status last verified
Aug 2013
First submitted
8 May 2008
Last updated
20 Aug 2013
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Refobacin Bone Cement R and Refobacin Plus Bone Cement in people with Osteoarthritis, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.

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 6 inclusion and 23 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 20 Aug 2013. 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 Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Tibial implant migration evaluated by RSA (time frame: 2013). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
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 20 Aug 2013.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in