Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:44 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 2:30 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04299802
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Last Update Posted:
2022-08-11
First Post:
2020-03-04
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy Versus Platelet Rich Plasma for Gluteal Tendinopathy
Sponsor:
Andrews Research & Education Foundation
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Prospective Randomized Comparison Study on the Effects of Percutaneous Ultrasonic Tenotomy Versus Leukocyte-Rich Platelet Rich Plasma for Refractory Gluteal Tendinopathy
Status:
WITHDRAWN
Status Verified Date:
2022-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Study not being pursued
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate safety and effectiveness of both a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy or a single injection of LR-PRP in gluteal tendinopathy. Effectiveness will be demonstrated in a superiority trial design by comparing improvement in pain and function after a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy versus a single injection of LR-PRP in refractory gluteal tendinopathy that has failed conservative management. The investigators hypothesize that both procedures will show improvement to pain and function from baseline to 24 weeks and improvement will remain at 48 weeks follow-up. The investigators propose to test this hypothesis with a series of randomized cases of gluteal tendinopathy treated with one of the proposed treatment arms and evaluate at specified intervals with validated clinical outcome measures.
Detailed Description:
Aim of the Study:
To investigate the safety and effectiveness of a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure versus a single injection of autologous leukocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in subjects with symptomatic gluteal tendinopathy which has been refractory to conservative treatment
Hypothesis of the Study:
The hypothesis of this study is that subjects with symptomatic gluteal tendinopathy (defined as \<50% partial-thickness tear of either the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus tendons on MRI or US) who receive either a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy or a single injection of LR-PRP will demonstrate less pain and improved hip function compared to pre-treatment baseline.
Primary Objective:
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate safety and effectiveness of both a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy or a single injection of LR-PRP in gluteal tendinopathy. Effectiveness will be demonstrated in a superiority trial design by comparing improvement in pain and function after a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy versus a single injection of LR-PRP in refractory gluteal tendinopathy that has failed conservative management.
Randomization:
Subjects will be randomly assigned to the single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure or single injection of LR-PRP arms in a 1:1 ratio.
Enrollment:
The providers from the Andrews Institute will enroll subjects into the study. 60 subjects assigned to two randomization arms will be enrolled: a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure arm and a single LR-PRP injection arm.
Study Duration:
Estimated Subject Enrollment Period: 36 weeks Treatment and Follow-up Period per Subject: 48 weeks
Follow-up Schedule:
Follow-up visits will occur at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks and 48 weeks post-procedure. Visits will include physical examinations, patient-reported outcome questionnaires, medication usage, adverse event monitoring and MRIs. Follow-up phone calls will occur at 24 and 48 weeks post-procedure. Phone calls will include patient-reported outcome questionnaires, medication usage, and adverse event monitoring.
To investigate the safety and effectiveness of a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure versus a single injection of autologous leukocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in subjects with symptomatic gluteal tendinopathy which has been refractory to conservative treatment
Hypothesis of the Study:
The hypothesis of this study is that subjects with symptomatic gluteal tendinopathy (defined as \<50% partial-thickness tear of either the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus tendons on MRI or US) who receive either a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy or a single injection of LR-PRP will demonstrate less pain and improved hip function compared to pre-treatment baseline.
Primary Objective:
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate safety and effectiveness of both a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy or a single injection of LR-PRP in gluteal tendinopathy. Effectiveness will be demonstrated in a superiority trial design by comparing improvement in pain and function after a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy versus a single injection of LR-PRP in refractory gluteal tendinopathy that has failed conservative management.
Randomization:
Subjects will be randomly assigned to the single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure or single injection of LR-PRP arms in a 1:1 ratio.
Enrollment:
The providers from the Andrews Institute will enroll subjects into the study. 60 subjects assigned to two randomization arms will be enrolled: a single percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy procedure arm and a single LR-PRP injection arm.
Study Duration:
Estimated Subject Enrollment Period: 36 weeks Treatment and Follow-up Period per Subject: 48 weeks
Follow-up Schedule:
Follow-up visits will occur at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks and 48 weeks post-procedure. Visits will include physical examinations, patient-reported outcome questionnaires, medication usage, adverse event monitoring and MRIs. Follow-up phone calls will occur at 24 and 48 weeks post-procedure. Phone calls will include patient-reported outcome questionnaires, medication usage, and adverse event monitoring.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: