Artrosis of the KneePhase 4NCT01936415
The Importance of Different Implant Surfaces of the Tibial Component for Migration and Adaptive Bone Remodeling in Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty (Vanguard Versus Regenerex)
A Phase 4 study testing Vanguard and Regenerex in people with Artrosis of the Knee, run by Hillerod Hospital, Denmark at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
In a prospective randomised study two uncemented tibial components with different coating (Vanguard® porous coating, Biomet and Regenerex® Primary Tibial Tray, Trabecular Metal coating, Biomet) used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are evaluated. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Artrosis of the Knee
- What is being tested?
- Vanguard and Regenerex
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- May 2010to Aug 2013
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Severe osteoarthrosis of the knee with indication for a TKA.
- Age between 18 and 70 years.
Who cannot join
- Diseases affecting the bone metabolism (osteoporosis, Pagets disease, hyperparathyreoidism etc.).
- Patients estimated not to be able to understand the "Information to patients" papers or do not want to participate in the study.
- Premenopausal women.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Denmark1 site
1. Knee Unit Hørsholm, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hillerød Hospital, Denmark
Hillerød, 3400
About this study
In a prospective randomised study two uncemented tibial components with different coating (Vanguard® porous coating, Biomet and Regenerex® Primary Tibial Tray, Trabecular Metal coating, Biomet) used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are evaluated. Both tibial component coatings are designed to provide excellent conditions for bone ingrowth.
The differences between the two tibial components are evaluated by measurements of migration of the tibial component assessed by Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and measurements of the adaptive bone remodeling of the proximal tibial assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
Read the detailed description
In general a primary TKA is a durable and well-functioning solution with a 10-year implant survival of more than 90 %. However, new techniques are developed and the patients´ demands for increased durability of the implants are increasing. It is believed that the new implant Regenerex, planned to be tested in the present study, with the new surface coating will facilitate bone ingrowth and secure a better fixation to the host bone, thus increasing the implant survival and improving the function of the prosthesis.
One of the implants (Vanguard) has been used for routine clinical use abroad, but also in Denmark for some years, and so far the results have been good.
The other type coating (Regenerex) is a micro-casting of the structure of normal trabecular bone, but made from metal alloy, in the element Titanium. Titanium is also very biocompatible (Hoffman 1993, Hahn, H 1970) and have been used with great success in e.g. uncemented total hip arthroplasy for several years (Marshall et al. 2004, Meding et al, 2004).
Trabecular metal has a porosious structure close to that of normal trabecular bone, and the biomechanical characteristics such as e.g. compressive strength and elastic modulus are very close to that of normal trabecular bone (Krygier et al. 1999, Zardiackas 2001). These characteristics are the reason why trabecular metal within the past decade have been used for production of different orthopedic implants, and the early clinical results so far have been very promising (Bobyn et al. 2004, Nasser \& Poggie 2004, Nehma et al. 2004, Nelson et al. 2003).
Quantitative measurements of the implant migration and adaptive bone remodeling of the bone close to the implants are generally accepted as suitable methods for an objective evaluation of the effect of joint replacement surgery and have been proposed as mandatory important examinations that must bee performed before new implants are distributed for wide-spread use (Bobyn et al. 2004, Petersen \& Schrøder 2004, Østgaard \& Nielsen 2004).
Very small movements between an implant and the bone can be measured by special RSA X-rays after implantation of small (0.8-1.0 mm) Tantalum markers attached to the implant and in the bone (Selvik 1989), while changes in bone mineral or bone mineral density (BMD) of the bone in close relation to the implant can be measured by DEXA (Glüer et al. 1990, Mazess \& Barden 1988).
Micromovements with migration of the tibial component are seen after both cemented and uncemented TKA during the first postoperative year. Subsequently most implants stabilize, while a minority migrate continuously beyond the first postoperative year (Ryd et al. 1995). The implants that continues to migrate are those with a high risk of later aseptic loosening. Several studies have evaluated the influence of different parameters such as mode of fixation (cemented/uncemented), surface coating e.g. hydroxyapatite, metal alloys, and design of the prostheses on the migration of the tibial component in primary TKA (Ryd 1986), but whether the use of a surface coating of trabecular metal (Titanium) will result in significant differences has not yet been evaluated.
In studies using different bone densitometric techniques for measurements of changes in bone mineral of the proximal tibia after primary TKA a significant decrease in BMD is seen in most studies (Hvid et al. 1988, Karbowski et al. 1999, Levitz et al. 1995, Petersen et al. 1995, Regnér et al. 1999). In some of the studies the decrease in BMD reaches 20% - 36% (Hvid et al. 1988, Levitz et al. 1995, Petersen et al. 1995, Regnér et al. 1999), however, in other studies BMD remains unchaged (Bohr \& Lund 1987, Li \& Nilsson 2000, Spittlehouse et al. 1999) or shows a minor increase (Petersen et al. 2005).
- Conditions
- Artrosis of the Knee
- Being tested
- Vanguard, Regenerex
- Keywords
- Knee prosthesis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VanguardDevice
A prospective randomized study where the patients are randomized to receive one of two prostheses (tibial components) with different coating: Vanguard pourous coating, Biomet and Regenerex® Primary Tibial Tray, Biomet. Both prostheses are available and approved by the FDA. The main difference between the implants is the coating of the tibial tray
RegenerexDevice
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Regenerex | Experimental | One of the two prosthesis investegated Receives: Device: Regenerex |
| Vanguard | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Device: Vanguard |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Migration of the tibial component
The differences between the two tibial components are evaluated by measurements of migration of the tibial component assessed by Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and measurements of the adaptive bone remodeling of the proximal tibial assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
The differens is messured in millimeters.
Measured: three years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2010
- Primary completionAug 2013
- Study completionAug 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Artrosis of the KneeStudies 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 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hillerod Hospital, Denmark
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Zimmer Biomet
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nikolaj Winther, Hillerod Hospital, Denmark
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01936415
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H-3-2009-077
- Status last verified
- Sep 2013
- First submitted
- 30 Apr 2012
- Last updated
- 6 Sep 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Winther NS, Jensen CL, Jensen CM, Lind T, Schroder HM, Flivik G, Petersen MM. Comparison of a novel porous titanium construct (Regenerex(R)) to a well proven porous coated tibial surface in cementless total knee arthroplasty - A prospective randomized RSA study with two-year follow-up. Knee. 2016 Dec;23(6):1002-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.09.010. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
PubMed 27769563
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Sep 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Importance of Different Implant Surfaces of the Tibial Component for Migration and Adaptive Bone Remodeling in Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty (Vanguard Versus Regenerex)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01936415
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H-3-2009-077
- Conditions
- Artrosis of the Knee
- Keywords
- Knee prosthesis
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hillerod Hospital, DenmarkUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Zimmer Biomet
- Study start
- May 2010
- Primary completion
- Aug 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- 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.
In a prospective randomised study two uncemented tibial components with different coating (Vanguard® porous coating, Biomet and Regenerex® Primary Tibial Tray, Trabecular Metal coating, Biomet) used for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are evaluated. Both tibial component coatings are designed to provide excellent conditions for bone ingrowth.
The differences between the two tibial components are evaluated by measurements of migration of the tibial component assessed by Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and measurements of the adaptive bone remodeling of the proximal tibial assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).
Detailed description
In general a primary TKA is a durable and well-functioning solution with a 10-year implant survival of more than 90 %. However, new techniques are developed and the patients´ demands for increased durability of the implants are increasing. It is believed that the new implant Regenerex, planned to be tested in the present study, with the new surface coating will facilitate bone ingrowth and secure a better fixation to the host bone, thus increasing the implant survival and improving the function of the prosthesis.
One of the implants (Vanguard) has been used for routine clinical use abroad, but also in Denmark for some years, and so far the results have been good.
The other type coating (Regenerex) is a micro-casting of the structure of normal trabecular bone, but made from metal alloy, in the element Titanium. Titanium is also very biocompatible (Hoffman 1993, Hahn, H 1970) and have been used with great success in e.g. uncemented total hip arthroplasy for several years (Marshall et al. 2004, Meding et al, 2004).
Trabecular metal has a porosious structure close to that of normal trabecular bone, and the biomechanical characteristics such as e.g. compressive strength and elastic modulus are very close to that of normal trabecular bone (Krygier et al. 1999, Zardiackas 2001). These characteristics are the reason why trabecular metal within the past decade have been used for production of different orthopedic implants, and the early clinical results so far have been very promising (Bobyn et al. 2004, Nasser \& Poggie 2004, Nehma et al. 2004, Nelson et al. 2003).
Quantitative measurements of the implant migration and adaptive bone remodeling of the bone close to the implants are generally accepted as suitable methods for an objective evaluation of the effect of joint replacement surgery and have been proposed as mandatory important examinations that must bee performed before new implants are distributed for wide-spread use (Bobyn et al. 2004, Petersen \& Schrøder 2004, Østgaard \& Nielsen 2004).
Very small movements between an implant and the bone can be measured by special RSA X-rays after implantation of small (0.8-1.0 mm) Tantalum markers attached to the implant and in the bone (Selvik 1989), while changes in bone mineral or bone mineral density (BMD) of the bone in close relation to the implant can be measured by DEXA (Glüer et al. 1990, Mazess \& Barden 1988).
Micromovements with migration of the tibial component are seen after both cemented and uncemented TKA during the first postoperative year. Subsequently most implants stabilize, while a minority migrate continuously beyond the first postoperative year (Ryd et al. 1995). The implants that continues to migrate are those with a high risk of later aseptic loosening. Several studies have evaluated the influence of different parameters such as mode of fixation (cemented/uncemented), surface coating e.g. hydroxyapatite, metal alloys, and design of the prostheses on the migration of the tibial component in primary TKA (Ryd 1986), but whether the use of a surface coating of trabecular metal (Titanium) will result in significant differences has not yet been evaluated.
In studies using different bone densitometric techniques for measurements of changes in bone mineral of the proximal tibia after primary TKA a significant decrease in BMD is seen in most studies (Hvid et al. 1988, Karbowski et al. 1999, Levitz et al. 1995, Petersen et al. 1995, Regnér et al. 1999). In some of the studies the decrease in BMD reaches 20% - 36% (Hvid et al. 1988, Levitz et al. 1995, Petersen et al. 1995, Regnér et al. 1999), however, in other studies BMD remains unchaged (Bohr \& Lund 1987, Li \& Nilsson 2000, Spittlehouse et al. 1999) or shows a minor increase (Petersen et al. 2005).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Regenerex | Experimental | Device: RegenerexOne of the two prosthesis investegated |
| Vanguard | Active comparator | Device: Vanguard |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Severe osteoarthrosis of the knee with indication for a TKA.
- Age between 18 and 70 years.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Diseases affecting the bone metabolism (osteoporosis, Pagets disease, hyperparathyreoidism etc.).
- Patients estimated not to be able to understand the "Information to patients" papers or do not want to participate in the study.
- Premenopausal women.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VanguardA prospective randomized study where the patients are randomized to receive one of two prostheses (tibial components) with different coating: Vanguard pourous coating, Biomet and Regenerex® Primary Tibial Tray, Biomet. Both prostheses are available and approved by the FDA. The main difference between the implants is the coating of the tibial tray | Device | Vanguard |
| Regenerex | Device | Regenerex |
Primary outcome
Migration of the tibial component
Time frame: three years
The differences between the two tibial components are evaluated by measurements of migration of the tibial component assessed by Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and measurements of the adaptive bone remodeling of the proximal tibial assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). The differens is messured in millimeters.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Sep 2013.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27769563Winther NS, Jensen CL, Jensen CM, Lind T, Schroder HM, Flivik G, Petersen MM. Comparison of a novel porous titanium construct (Regenerex(R)) to a well proven porous coated tibial surface in cementless total knee arthroplasty - A prospective randomized RSA study with two-year follow-up. Knee. 2016 Dec;23(6):1002-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.09.010. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Vanguard and Regenerex in people with Artrosis of the Knee, run by Hillerod Hospital, Denmark 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 2 inclusion and 3 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 6 Sep 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.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
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?
Migration of the tibial component (time frame: three years). 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 NCT01936415, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Sep 2013.