Partial Meniscal LossPhase 4NCT06775197
Partial Meniscal Replacement with Spongioflex®
A Phase 4 study testing partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex® in people with Partial Meniscal Loss and Lateral Meniscus Partial Loss, run by Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven at 1 site in Germany.
Trial summary
The purpose of this investigator-initiated trial is to evaluate whether the novel graft can prevent/reduce the disadvantages of the previously used replacement materials and shows better results than the group of patients, which were not operated. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Partial Meniscal Loss, Lateral Meniscus Partial Loss, Medial Meniscal Partial Loss
- What is being tested?
- partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex®
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteGermany
- Study dates
- 5 Nov 2024to 5 Nov 2031
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients (male and female) with:
- Partial loss of portions of the
- lateral meniscus and lateral joint line pain OR
- medial meniscus and medial joint line pain
- sufficient standing of the peripheral rim, so that the procedure can be performed
- Age: 18-60 years
- signed written informed consent to the study and to provide the scientific data in pseudonymized form
Who cannot join
- The presence of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency which is not resolved by reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament within 16 weeks after partial meniscal implantation.
- Axial deviation (>2° varus or valgus)
- realignment osteotomy not performed within 12 weeks
- advanced cartilage damage (grade III according to ICRS) and osteoarthrosis in the affected compartment (grade III according to Kellgren and Lawrence [33])
- Extension deficit of more than 3° compared to the opposite side or a knee flexion of less than 125°
- inflammatory arthritis or synovitis on the treated knee
Show all 17Show fewer
- BMI greater than 30 kg/m²
- <18 years, >60 years
- Chronic pain patients
- only for patients who will be operated:
- with increased anaesthesiologic risk, e.g., with known or predicted difficult airway
- with increased risk of bleeding
- with increased risk of infection
- with necrotic, infected, or poorly perfused host sides
- history of allergic reactions
- acute hypersensitivity reactions to the IMP or any of its excipients
- pregnant woman
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Germany1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven GmbH
Greven, North Rhine-Westphalia, 48268
Clemens Kösters, PD. Dr. med., +49-2571-502-12001, Clemens.Koesters@mjh-greven.de
Daniel A den Toom, Dr. med, +49-2571-502-12001, daniel.toom@mjh-greven.de
About this study
Official title: Sterile Allogeneic Spongioflex® Allograft As Partial Meniscal Replacement After Incomplete Meniscal Loss, an Investigator-initiated Trial
The purpose of this investigator-initiated trial is to evaluate whether the novel graft can prevent/reduce the disadvantages of the previously used replacement materials and shows better results than the group of patients, which were not operated. Since there is currently no alternative made of biological material to this product, this investigator-initiated trial is of great medical and economic importance. The otherwise following arthrosis or knee prosthesis implantation (TKA ) could be prevented or at least postponed. Initial clinical results are promising.
An important and sensitive parameter for assessing the postoperative function of the meniscus is the MRI image. Genovese et al. 2007 were able to show in a categorization/classification which magnetic resonance image can be expected in the case of successful incorporation. Several studies have shown that the known clinical knee scores (Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS, VAS pain) improve significantly after successful ingrowth of the meniscus implant.
Read the detailed description
The menisci consist of fibrocartilage. They are partially (laterally more than medially) mobile parts of the joint surfaces and compensate for the incongruence of the femur and tibia. They reduce the joint pressure on the tibial plateau and the femoral condyles and help to stabilize the joint. Due to this biomechanical relevance, the partial loss of the meniscus leads to arthritic changes in long term. Suturing the torn meniscus is increasingly becoming the focus of knee surgery. Degenerative torn menisci have a significantly poorer prognosis with regard to healing than traumatically torn menisci (e.g. meniscus damage associated with a cruciate ligament tear).
Indications for partial meniscus replacement are symptomatic, degenerative, and irreparable damage to the medial and lateral meniscus, possibly with early osteoarthritis of the compartments, as well as partial loss of the meniscus in the event of anterior knee instability in young, active patients, in which case simultaneous reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament should be performed. A prerequisite for a good clinical result after partial meniscus replacement is a stable knee without malalignment in the coronal plane. Partial meniscus replacement is not suitable in the case of axial deviation and knee instability, patients older than 60 years, advanced chondromalacia and degenerative changes in the affected compartment, an extension deficit of more than 3° compared to the opposite side or a knee flexion of less than 125°. Inflammatory arthritis or synovial inflammation of the knee and a BMI greater than 30 kg/m² are additional exclusion criteria.
Williams et al. 2007 could show, that 5 years after partial removal of the medial or lateral meniscus, despite an excellent functional result, 64% of patients showed medial and 33% lateral cartilage damage on MRI. This study highlights the considerable delay with which the symptoms occur despite already detectable arthritic changes.
Englund et al. were able to show in a study that patients developed osteoarthritis significantly more frequently over a period of 30 months if they had meniscus damage than if they did not. Englund et al. detected tibiofemoral osteoarthritis in 27% of patients 15 years after partial meniscus removal, compared to 10% in a control group that had not undergone surgery.
In the case of incomplete meniscus loss, where the peripheral rim is sufficiently intact, defect filling is the only way to restore the lost substance and function of the meniscus. In the past, an implant made of bovine collagen (Collagen Meniscus Implant (CMI), Stryker) or an artificial meniscus made of polyurethane (Actifit, 2med) was often used. The CMI has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, so that no biological treatment alternative exists.
Schenk et al. were able to show in a recent study for the CMI, consisting of bovine collagen, that, despite a significant improvement in pain and function, the CMI is subject to a progressive shrinkage process over time. The studies mentioned above make it clear that partial replacement of the meniscus is necessary if preservation by meniscus suturing is no longer possible to prevent or postpone arthritic changes.
In the investigator-initiated study on which this application is based, a novel implant made from demineralized allogenic human cancellous bone (Spongioflex®, DIZG gGmbH Berlin) is to be implanted into the meniscus defect of the recipient knee. This transplant has sponge-like properties and therefore facilitates the ingrowth of cells from the surrounding meniscus[16]. The IMP (Spongioflex®) is decalcified and demineralized, it is hard, when dry, but soft when wet. In the knee the conditions are wet, thus it stays soft. It is pliable and can be easily sutured.
The manufacturer (DIZG gGmbH) did a study of cell ingrowth on Spongioflex®. They describe that ingrowth of cells on Spongioflex® was observed after 28 days, and these cells do not ossify.
Scotti et al. summarizes 2013 the knowledge in respect to meniscal repair as follows:
"In the last decade, striving for optimal restoration of meniscal tissue, the orthopedic surgeon's armamentarium has been enriched by the use of biocompatible meniscus scaffold and meniscal allograft transplantation". "However, despite promising short-term results, none of the current strategies have demonstrated regeneration of a functional, long-lasting meniscal tissue and re-establishment of a proper knee homeostasis in the meniscectomised knee". "The rationale for using a cell-free biomaterial to replace part of the meniscus is based on repopulation of the scaffold by the host cells recruited from the synovium and the meniscal remnants, and subsequent tissue ingrowth which renders this approach cell-based after implantation. A mandatory prerequisite is the absence of both knee instability and malalignment".
This section of the paper of Scotti et al. describes exactly the need for a restoration of the meniscus. Furthermore it defines exactly the features of a scaffold:
"A biomaterial used as scaffold for meniscus tissue engineering purposes should present many features. In particular, the ideal meniscal scaffold should be (i) "cell-instructive", promoting cell differentiation and proliferation if cell-seeded, or cell migration if cell-free; (ii) "biomimetic", mimicking architecture, tribology and mechanical features of the native meniscus; (iii) resilient and resistant to withstand mechanical forces acting in the joint while cells produce ECM; (iv) biocompatible, not evoking any foreign-body reaction also with its degradation products; (v) slowly biodegradable allowing to be gradually replaced by biologic tissue; (vi) open, with high porosity, allowing diffusion of nutrients and catabolic substances; and (vii) easy to handle, to be sutured and to be implanted by the surgeon".
Pereira et al. describes that a meniscal implant, either for partial or total replacement should:
"provide the biomechanical properties but also the biological features to replace the loss of native tissue. Moreover, these approaches include possibilities for patient-specific implants of correct size and shape".
Spongioflex® fulfills all these demands described by Dabaghi et al., Scotti et al. and Peirera et al. and it can be adapted in size and shape and thus is at the moment the optimal choice for partial meniscal replacement.
Dickerson et al. describes that "the scaffold must have a high fluid conductance, concomitant with high porosity…. Porosity allows more rapid cell incorporation along the surface and through the thickness of the scaffold, promoting integration with the host tissue." "The scaffold must guide cells to regenerate all four zones of the tissue structure".
This is the case of Spongioflex® it is porose and can guide cells. Scotti et al. proposes 2013 to use CMI for partial meniscal regeneration, but this product is retracted from the market by now, and they describe already the shrinking of the transplant. Knee stability and an aligned knee are a requisite for the study proposed. Dickerson et al. shows that new fibrocartilage tissue is formed on the demineralized end of the allograft. Results of Credille et al. support these findings. It will not be ossified again. Smith et al. describes that "demineralized cancellous bone sponges are Food and Drug Administration-approved and commercially available products that have the potential to provide biologic and biomechanical augments for rotator cuff healing. The sponge can act as a scaffold for cellular attachment and proliferation".
Credille et al. showed in a recent publication that a biphasic interpositional cancellous allograft (BioEnthesis; Sparta BioPharma, Inc., Madison, NJ) can be used for rotator cuff repair. The allograft is "a porous scaffold for endogenous biological factor migration and thus potentially address the lack of enthesis recapitulation at the rotator cuff repair interface… while the demineralized layer supports soft-tissue ingrowth while acting as a "sponge" to hold bone marrow elements at the repair site".
The group around Prof. Moroder from the Charité has used Spongioflex® for glenoid repair. They describe that the transplant does not calcify again. The glenoid is also no bony structure. They got an ethic vote (EA1/039/18) for using the same product in non-bone structures and could show successful restoration of the glenoid.
Sundar et al. describes that the use of demineralized bone matrix increased fibrocartilage when used for augmentation of rotator cuff repair. The used graft (Spongioflex®) provides a scaffold for cell migration of meniscal cells from neighboring parts of the meniscus. The intended study will show that this kind of allograft is suitable for partial meniscal replacement because it allows cell migration and has enough porosity to allow fluid conductance. As described by Wildemann et al. sufficient growth factors are remaining in the demineralized bone matrix (Spongioflex®) to support new fibrocartilage formation. Scotti et al. underlines the importance of growth factors for meniscal regeneration.
In summary from the literature, it can be concluded, that Spongioflex® is an attractive scaffold for partial meniscal repair because it is fully biological, it still has fibrocartilage inductive factors, allows cell migration, fluid conductivity, resists biomechanical forces, does not provoke immunoreactivity, it is adaptable in size and can easily be sutured. Partial meniscus replacement is an established surgical treatment for patients who have undergone partial meniscus removal, to lead to the ingrowth of cells and the regeneration of meniscus-like tissue.
- Conditions
- Partial Meniscal Loss, Lateral Meniscus Partial Loss, Medial Meniscal Partial Loss, Meniscus Lesion, Meniscal Injuries, Meniscal Tear
- Being tested
- partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex®
- Keywords
- partial meniscal loss, Allograft, Spongioflex®, IKDC, KOOS, return to sport, Outerbridge score, extrusion, VAS pain score
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex®Procedure or surgery
for any surgical procedure, the patient receives an antibiotic shot NIMP) just before surgery. The patient will be arthroscopically treated via the arthroscopic portal with implantation of a demineralized bone block (IMP: Spongioflex ®, appropriate size (DIZG gGmbH, Berlin, Germany)) as a partial meniscus substitute. The block will be adapted to the defect size and secured with 2-4 inside-out sutures (Etibond 0, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). No dosing, the IMP has no systemic effect. The surgery (Intervention) will last between 60-90 minutes. The hospital stay is between 2-3 days after surgery. Follow-up visits: at the end of the hospital stay, after 6 weeks, after 6, 12 and 24 months and after 5 years for the operated group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| operated group (partial meniscal replacement) | Active comparator | Patients, who decide to get operated will be in the experimental group, Spongioflex® will be the investigational product Receives: Procedure: partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex® |
| non-operated patients | No intervention | Patients who do not decide to be operated at this stage, but want to be closely monitored to eventually join the operated group later. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the KOOS Score
Improvement of KOOS 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the IKDC
Improvement of IKDC 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the VAS pain Score
Improvement of VAS pain Score 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
Secondary outcomes (7)
Safety of the patient using the number of adverse events an serious adverse events
Type, frequency and severity of treatment-related AEs and SAEs
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Efficacy of the procedure to prevent/prolonge progression to TKA
How many patients show a progression of osteoarthrosis up to TKA?
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation using outerbridge graduation
Outerbridge graduation at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years, comparison between the operated and the non-operated group
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation for size of meniscus
size of meniscus, at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years, comparison between the operated and the non-operated group
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation for number of patients with extrusion
number of patients with extrusion at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years, comparison between the operated and the non-operated group
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation evaluating the size of extrusion
Size of extrusion at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years, comparison between the operated and the non-operated group
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Patient satisfaction using a questionnaire
Very pleased, pleased, not pleased, very unsatisfied in the operated group after surgery.
Measured: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Jan 2025
- Study start5 Nov 2024
- Primary completion5 Nov 2029 (estimated)
- Study completion5 Nov 2031 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (30)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Partial Meniscal LossStudies 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
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Low interventional trial with 2 arms (operated group in comparison to non-operated group)
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Clemens Kösters, PD, Dr. med, Principal investigator, Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven GmbH
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06775197
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Spongioflex_EK_5324_01
- Status last verified
- Dec 2024
- First submitted
- 23 Dec 2024
- Last updated
- 15 Jan 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
KELLGREN JH, LAWRENCE JS. Radiological assessment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):485-93. doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.485. No abstract available.
PubMed 13498603Genovese E, Angeretti MG, Ronga M, Leonardi A, Novario R, Callegari L, Fugazzola C. Follow-up of collagen meniscus implants by MRI. Radiol Med. 2007 Oct;112(7):1036-48. doi: 10.1007/s11547-007-0204-y. Epub 2007 Oct 21. English, Italian.
PubMed 17952676Behrendt S. MRI follow up of bilateral partial meniscal substitution with a demineralized bone block. A case report. Radiol Case Rep. 2022 Oct 27;18(1):21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2022.09.091. eCollection 2023 Jan.
PubMed 36324835Bulgheroni P, Murena L, Ratti C, Bulgheroni E, Ronga M, Cherubino P. Follow-up of collagen meniscus implant patients: clinical, radiological, and magnetic resonance imaging results at 5 years. Knee. 2010 Jun;17(3):224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.08.011. Epub 2009 Oct 2.
PubMed 19800801Stone KR, Rodkey WG, Webber R, McKinney L, Steadman JR. Meniscal regeneration with copolymeric collagen scaffolds. In vitro and in vivo studies evaluated clinically, histologically, and biochemically. Am J Sports Med. 1992 Mar-Apr;20(2):104-11. doi: 10.1177/036354659202000202.
PubMed 1558234Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Lopomo N, Bruni D, Giordano G, Ravazzolo G, Molinari M, Marcacci M. Prospective long-term outcomes of the medial collagen meniscus implant versus partial medial meniscectomy: a minimum 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2011 May;39(5):977-85. doi: 10.1177/0363546510391179. Epub 2011 Feb 4.
PubMed 21297005Monllau JC, Gelber PE, Abat F, Pelfort X, Abad R, Hinarejos P, Tey M. Outcome after partial medial meniscus substitution with the collagen meniscal implant at a minimum of 10 years' follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2011 Jul;27(7):933-43. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.02.018. Epub 2011 May 31.
PubMed 21621373Wildemann B, Kadow-Romacker A, Pruss A, Haas NP, Schmidmaier G. Quantification of growth factors in allogenic bone grafts extracted with three different methods. Cell Tissue Bank. 2007;8(2):107-14. doi: 10.1007/s10561-006-9021-0. Epub 2006 Oct 25.
PubMed 17063261Wildemann B, Kadow-Romacker A, Haas NP, Schmidmaier G. Quantification of various growth factors in different demineralized bone matrix preparations. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 May;81(2):437-42. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31085.
PubMed 17117475Hui PW, Leung PC, Sher A. Fluid conductance of cancellous bone graft as a predictor for graft-host interface healing. J Biomech. 1996 Jan;29(1):123-32. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(95)00010-0.
PubMed 8839025Sundar S, Pendegrass CJ, Blunn GW. Tendon bone healing can be enhanced by demineralized bone matrix: a functional and histological study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009 Jan;88(1):115-22. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31157.
PubMed 18683228Smith MJ, Pfeiffer FM, Cook CR, Kuroki K, Cook JL. Rotator cuff healing using demineralized cancellous bone matrix sponge interposition compared to standard repair in a preclinical canine model. J Orthop Res. 2018 Mar;36(3):906-912. doi: 10.1002/jor.23680. Epub 2017 Aug 29.
PubMed 28792082Credille KT, Wang ZRC, Horner NS, Regan DP, Gadomski BC, Easley JT, Garrigues GE, Yanke AB. Biphasic Interpositional Allograft for Rotator Cuff Repair Augmentation Is Safe in an Ovine Model. Arthroscopy. 2023 Sep;39(9):1983-1997. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.03.018. Epub 2023 Mar 29.
PubMed 37001743Dickerson DA, Misk TN, Van Sickle DC, Breur GJ, Nauman EA. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of orthopedic interface repair using a tissue scaffold with a continuous hard tissue-soft tissue transition. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Jun 19;8:18. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-18.
PubMed 23782505Pereira H, Fatih Cengiz I, Gomes S, Espregueira-Mendes J, Ripoll PL, Monllau JC, Reis RL, Oliveira JM. Meniscal allograft transplants and new scaffolding techniques. EFORT Open Rev. 2019 Jun 3;4(6):279-295. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180103. eCollection 2019 Jun.
PubMed 31210969
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Jan 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Sterile Allogeneic Spongioflex® Allograft As Partial Meniscal Replacement After Incomplete Meniscal Loss, an Investigator-initiated Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06775197
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Spongioflex_EK_5324_01
- Conditions
- Partial Meniscal Loss, Lateral Meniscus Partial Loss, Medial Meniscal Partial Loss, Meniscus Lesion, Meniscal Injuries, Meniscal Tear
- Keywords
- partial meniscal loss, Allograft, Spongioflex®, IKDC, KOOS, return to sport, Outerbridge score, extrusion
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Maria-Josef-Hospital GrevenUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 Nov 2029 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 5 Nov 2031 (estimated)
- First posted
- 15 Jan 2025 (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.
The purpose of this investigator-initiated trial is to evaluate whether the novel graft can prevent/reduce the disadvantages of the previously used replacement materials and shows better results than the group of patients, which were not operated. Since there is currently no alternative made of biological material to this product, this investigator-initiated trial is of great medical and economic importance. The otherwise following arthrosis or knee prosthesis implantation (TKA ) could be prevented or at least postponed. Initial clinical results are promising.
An important and sensitive parameter for assessing the postoperative function of the meniscus is the MRI image. Genovese et al. 2007 were able to show in a categorization/classification which magnetic resonance image can be expected in the case of successful incorporation. Several studies have shown that the known clinical knee scores (Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS, VAS pain) improve significantly after successful ingrowth of the meniscus implant.
Detailed description
The menisci consist of fibrocartilage. They are partially (laterally more than medially) mobile parts of the joint surfaces and compensate for the incongruence of the femur and tibia. They reduce the joint pressure on the tibial plateau and the femoral condyles and help to stabilize the joint. Due to this biomechanical relevance, the partial loss of the meniscus leads to arthritic changes in long term. Suturing the torn meniscus is increasingly becoming the focus of knee surgery. Degenerative torn menisci have a significantly poorer prognosis with regard to healing than traumatically torn menisci (e.g. meniscus damage associated with a cruciate ligament tear).
Indications for partial meniscus replacement are symptomatic, degenerative, and irreparable damage to the medial and lateral meniscus, possibly with early osteoarthritis of the compartments, as well as partial loss of the meniscus in the event of anterior knee instability in young, active patients, in which case simultaneous reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament should be performed. A prerequisite for a good clinical result after partial meniscus replacement is a stable knee without malalignment in the coronal plane. Partial meniscus replacement is not suitable in the case of axial deviation and knee instability, patients older than 60 years, advanced chondromalacia and degenerative changes in the affected compartment, an extension deficit of more than 3° compared to the opposite side or a knee flexion of less than 125°. Inflammatory arthritis or synovial inflammation of the knee and a BMI greater than 30 kg/m² are additional exclusion criteria.
Williams et al. 2007 could show, that 5 years after partial removal of the medial or lateral meniscus, despite an excellent functional result, 64% of patients showed medial and 33% lateral cartilage damage on MRI. This study highlights the considerable delay with which the symptoms occur despite already detectable arthritic changes.
Englund et al. were able to show in a study that patients developed osteoarthritis significantly more frequently over a period of 30 months if they had meniscus damage than if they did not. Englund et al. detected tibiofemoral osteoarthritis in 27% of patients 15 years after partial meniscus removal, compared to 10% in a control group that had not undergone surgery.
In the case of incomplete meniscus loss, where the peripheral rim is sufficiently intact, defect filling is the only way to restore the lost substance and function of the meniscus. In the past, an implant made of bovine collagen (Collagen Meniscus Implant (CMI), Stryker) or an artificial meniscus made of polyurethane (Actifit, 2med) was often used. The CMI has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer, so that no biological treatment alternative exists.
Schenk et al. were able to show in a recent study for the CMI, consisting of bovine collagen, that, despite a significant improvement in pain and function, the CMI is subject to a progressive shrinkage process over time. The studies mentioned above make it clear that partial replacement of the meniscus is necessary if preservation by meniscus suturing is no longer possible to prevent or postpone arthritic changes.
In the investigator-initiated study on which this application is based, a novel implant made from demineralized allogenic human cancellous bone (Spongioflex®, DIZG gGmbH Berlin) is to be implanted into the meniscus defect of the recipient knee. This transplant has sponge-like properties and therefore facilitates the ingrowth of cells from the surrounding meniscus[16]. The IMP (Spongioflex®) is decalcified and demineralized, it is hard, when dry, but soft when wet. In the knee the conditions are wet, thus it stays soft. It is pliable and can be easily sutured.
The manufacturer (DIZG gGmbH) did a study of cell ingrowth on Spongioflex®. They describe that ingrowth of cells on Spongioflex® was observed after 28 days, and these cells do not ossify.
Scotti et al. summarizes 2013 the knowledge in respect to meniscal repair as follows:
"In the last decade, striving for optimal restoration of meniscal tissue, the orthopedic surgeon's armamentarium has been enriched by the use of biocompatible meniscus scaffold and meniscal allograft transplantation". "However, despite promising short-term results, none of the current strategies have demonstrated regeneration of a functional, long-lasting meniscal tissue and re-establishment of a proper knee homeostasis in the meniscectomised knee". "The rationale for using a cell-free biomaterial to replace part of the meniscus is based on repopulation of the scaffold by the host cells recruited from the synovium and the meniscal remnants, and subsequent tissue ingrowth which renders this approach cell-based after implantation. A mandatory prerequisite is the absence of both knee instability and malalignment".
This section of the paper of Scotti et al. describes exactly the need for a restoration of the meniscus. Furthermore it defines exactly the features of a scaffold:
"A biomaterial used as scaffold for meniscus tissue engineering purposes should present many features. In particular, the ideal meniscal scaffold should be (i) "cell-instructive", promoting cell differentiation and proliferation if cell-seeded, or cell migration if cell-free; (ii) "biomimetic", mimicking architecture, tribology and mechanical features of the native meniscus; (iii) resilient and resistant to withstand mechanical forces acting in the joint while cells produce ECM; (iv) biocompatible, not evoking any foreign-body reaction also with its degradation products; (v) slowly biodegradable allowing to be gradually replaced by biologic tissue; (vi) open, with high porosity, allowing diffusion of nutrients and catabolic substances; and (vii) easy to handle, to be sutured and to be implanted by the surgeon".
Pereira et al. describes that a meniscal implant, either for partial or total replacement should:
"provide the biomechanical properties but also the biological features to replace the loss of native tissue. Moreover, these approaches include possibilities for patient-specific implants of correct size and shape".
Spongioflex® fulfills all these demands described by Dabaghi et al., Scotti et al. and Peirera et al. and it can be adapted in size and shape and thus is at the moment the optimal choice for partial meniscal replacement.
Dickerson et al. describes that "the scaffold must have a high fluid conductance, concomitant with high porosity…. Porosity allows more rapid cell incorporation along the surface and through the thickness of the scaffold, promoting integration with the host tissue." "The scaffold must guide cells to regenerate all four zones of the tissue structure".
This is the case of Spongioflex® it is porose and can guide cells. Scotti et al. proposes 2013 to use CMI for partial meniscal regeneration, but this product is retracted from the market by now, and they describe already the shrinking of the transplant. Knee stability and an aligned knee are a requisite for the study proposed. Dickerson et al. shows that new fibrocartilage tissue is formed on the demineralized end of the allograft. Results of Credille et al. support these findings. It will not be ossified again. Smith et al. describes that "demineralized cancellous bone sponges are Food and Drug Administration-approved and commercially available products that have the potential to provide biologic and biomechanical augments for rotator cuff healing. The sponge can act as a scaffold for cellular attachment and proliferation".
Credille et al. showed in a recent publication that a biphasic interpositional cancellous allograft (BioEnthesis; Sparta BioPharma, Inc., Madison, NJ) can be used for rotator cuff repair. The allograft is "a porous scaffold for endogenous biological factor migration and thus potentially address the lack of enthesis recapitulation at the rotator cuff repair interface… while the demineralized layer supports soft-tissue ingrowth while acting as a "sponge" to hold bone marrow elements at the repair site".
The group around Prof. Moroder from the Charité has used Spongioflex® for glenoid repair. They describe that the transplant does not calcify again. The glenoid is also no bony structure. They got an ethic vote (EA1/039/18) for using the same product in non-bone structures and could show successful restoration of the glenoid.
Sundar et al. describes that the use of demineralized bone matrix increased fibrocartilage when used for augmentation of rotator cuff repair. The used graft (Spongioflex®) provides a scaffold for cell migration of meniscal cells from neighboring parts of the meniscus. The intended study will show that this kind of allograft is suitable for partial meniscal replacement because it allows cell migration and has enough porosity to allow fluid conductance. As described by Wildemann et al. sufficient growth factors are remaining in the demineralized bone matrix (Spongioflex®) to support new fibrocartilage formation. Scotti et al. underlines the importance of growth factors for meniscal regeneration.
In summary from the literature, it can be concluded, that Spongioflex® is an attractive scaffold for partial meniscal repair because it is fully biological, it still has fibrocartilage inductive factors, allows cell migration, fluid conductivity, resists biomechanical forces, does not provoke immunoreactivity, it is adaptable in size and can easily be sutured. Partial meniscus replacement is an established surgical treatment for patients who have undergone partial meniscus removal, to lead to the ingrowth of cells and the regeneration of meniscus-like tissue.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Low interventional trial with 2 arms (operated group in comparison to non-operated group)
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| operated group (partial meniscal replacement) | Active comparator | Procedure: partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex®Patients, who decide to get operated will be in the experimental group, Spongioflex® will be the investigational product |
| non-operated patients | No intervention | –Patients who do not decide to be operated at this stage, but want to be closely monitored to eventually join the operated group later. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Patients (male and female) with:
- Partial loss of portions of the
- sufficient standing of the peripheral rim, so that the procedure can be performed
- Age: 18-60 years
- signed written informed consent to the study and to provide the scientific data in pseudonymized form
Key exclusion criteria (17 listed)
- The presence of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency which is not resolved by reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament within 16 weeks after partial meniscal implantation.
- Axial deviation (>2° varus or valgus)
- realignment osteotomy not performed within 12 weeks
- advanced cartilage damage (grade III according to ICRS) and osteoarthrosis in the affected compartment (grade III according to Kellgren and Lawrence [33])
- Extension deficit of more than 3° compared to the opposite side or a knee flexion of less than 125°
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 |
|---|---|---|
| partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex®for any surgical procedure, the patient receives an antibiotic shot NIMP) just before surgery. The patient will be arthroscopically treated via the arthroscopic portal with implantation of a demineralized bone block (IMP: Spongioflex ®, appropriate size (DIZG gGmbH, Berlin, Germany)) as a partial meniscus substitute. The block will be adapted to the defect size and secured with 2-4 inside-out sutures (Etibond 0, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). No dosing, the IMP has no systemic effect. The surgery (Intervention) will last between 60-90 minutes. The hospital stay is between 2-3 days after surgery. Follow-up visits: at the end of the hospital stay, after 6 weeks, after 6, 12 and 24 months and after 5 years for the operated group. | Procedure or surgery | operated group (partial meniscal replacement) |
Primary outcome
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the KOOS Score
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
Improvement of KOOS 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the IKDC
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
Improvement of IKDC 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the VAS pain Score
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years
Improvement of VAS pain Score 2 and 5 years after surgery compared to scores of the non-operated group and compared to pre-surgery scores
7 secondary outcomes
Safety of the patient using the number of adverse events an serious adverse events
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Efficacy of the procedure to prevent/prolonge progression to TKA
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation using outerbridge graduation
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation for size of meniscus
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation for number of patients with extrusion
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
MRI evaluation evaluating the size of extrusion
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Patient satisfaction using a questionnaire
Time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (for operated patients) and at 2 and 5 years
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Jan 2025.
- Background: PubMed 13498603KELLGREN JH, LAWRENCE JS. Radiological assessment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):485-93. doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.485. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17952676Genovese E, Angeretti MG, Ronga M, Leonardi A, Novario R, Callegari L, Fugazzola C. Follow-up of collagen meniscus implants by MRI. Radiol Med. 2007 Oct;112(7):1036-48. doi: 10.1007/s11547-007-0204-y. Epub 2007 Oct 21. English, Italian.
- Background: PubMed 36324835Behrendt S. MRI follow up of bilateral partial meniscal substitution with a demineralized bone block. A case report. Radiol Case Rep. 2022 Oct 27;18(1):21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.radcr.2022.09.091. eCollection 2023 Jan.
- Background: PubMed 19800801Bulgheroni P, Murena L, Ratti C, Bulgheroni E, Ronga M, Cherubino P. Follow-up of collagen meniscus implant patients: clinical, radiological, and magnetic resonance imaging results at 5 years. Knee. 2010 Jun;17(3):224-9. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.08.011. Epub 2009 Oct 2.
- Background: PubMed 1558234Stone KR, Rodkey WG, Webber R, McKinney L, Steadman JR. Meniscal regeneration with copolymeric collagen scaffolds. In vitro and in vivo studies evaluated clinically, histologically, and biochemically. Am J Sports Med. 1992 Mar-Apr;20(2):104-11. doi: 10.1177/036354659202000202.
- Background: PubMed 21297005Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Lopomo N, Bruni D, Giordano G, Ravazzolo G, Molinari M, Marcacci M. Prospective long-term outcomes of the medial collagen meniscus implant versus partial medial meniscectomy: a minimum 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2011 May;39(5):977-85. doi: 10.1177/0363546510391179. Epub 2011 Feb 4.
- Background: PubMed 21621373Monllau JC, Gelber PE, Abat F, Pelfort X, Abad R, Hinarejos P, Tey M. Outcome after partial medial meniscus substitution with the collagen meniscal implant at a minimum of 10 years' follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2011 Jul;27(7):933-43. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.02.018. Epub 2011 May 31.
- Background: PubMed 17063261Wildemann B, Kadow-Romacker A, Pruss A, Haas NP, Schmidmaier G. Quantification of growth factors in allogenic bone grafts extracted with three different methods. Cell Tissue Bank. 2007;8(2):107-14. doi: 10.1007/s10561-006-9021-0. Epub 2006 Oct 25.
- Background: PubMed 17117475Wildemann B, Kadow-Romacker A, Haas NP, Schmidmaier G. Quantification of various growth factors in different demineralized bone matrix preparations. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 May;81(2):437-42. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31085.
- Background: PubMed 8839025Hui PW, Leung PC, Sher A. Fluid conductance of cancellous bone graft as a predictor for graft-host interface healing. J Biomech. 1996 Jan;29(1):123-32. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(95)00010-0.
- Background: PubMed 18683228Sundar S, Pendegrass CJ, Blunn GW. Tendon bone healing can be enhanced by demineralized bone matrix: a functional and histological study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009 Jan;88(1):115-22. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31157.
- Background: PubMed 28792082Smith MJ, Pfeiffer FM, Cook CR, Kuroki K, Cook JL. Rotator cuff healing using demineralized cancellous bone matrix sponge interposition compared to standard repair in a preclinical canine model. J Orthop Res. 2018 Mar;36(3):906-912. doi: 10.1002/jor.23680. Epub 2017 Aug 29.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Partial Meniscal Loss
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.
Clemens Kösters, PD, Dr. med principal investigator
Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven GmbH
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 partial meniscal replacement with Spongioflex® in people with Partial Meniscal Loss and Lateral Meniscus Partial Loss, run by Maria-Josef-Hospital Greven at 1 site in Germany.
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 7 inclusion and 17 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Jan 2025. 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 Germany. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Clemens Kösters, PD, Dr. med. (+49-2571-502-12001, Clemens.Koesters@mjh-greven.de), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To evaluate efficacy of the procedure using the KOOS Score (time frame: at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months (operated patients) and at 2 years and 5 years). The study lists 3 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 NCT06775197, which also lists 30 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 15 Jan 2025.