Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 11:50 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-01-01 @ 7:02 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT00894361
Status:
TERMINATED
Last Update Posted:
2020-09-07
First Post:
2009-03-24
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
True
Brief Title:
Comparison of Mobile-Bearing and Fixed-Bearing All-Polyethylene Tibia Total Knee Designs
Sponsor:
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Randomized Prospective Comparison of Mobile-Bearing and Fixed-Bearing (All-Polyethylene Tibia) Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) Designs
Status:
TERMINATED
Status Verified Date:
2020-09
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
PI/study coordinator retired due to personal family health matters; study sponsor withdrew funding. Study terminated and no data collected or analyzed
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
This study will be designed to compare prospectively, in a randomized fashion, the clinical, functional, and radiographic results of a nonmodular (all-polyethylene tibi/AP) fixed-bearing posterior cruciate substituting design with a modular posterior cruciate substituting rotating platform (RP) design for total knee arthroplasty. Comparing these two designs will afford the investigators information in the following areas:
1. Does a RP design offer improvement in range of motion over a AP design?
2. Does a RP design have improved wear characteristics over a nonmodular AP design?
3. Is there a clear clinical advantage to the RP design that justifies its increased cost?
Answering these questions will allow surgeons to use RP designs appropriately in different demand populations.
This study was designed to address the questions of whether an RP design offers improvement in ROM, Knee Society scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores, selected Medical Outcomes Short-Form Health Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores or radiographic measures, over an APT design. The investigators' primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in these outcome measures at a minimum two year followup. A secondary hypothesis based on the anticipated long-term followup of this group was that there would be no difference in implant survival.
1. Does a RP design offer improvement in range of motion over a AP design?
2. Does a RP design have improved wear characteristics over a nonmodular AP design?
3. Is there a clear clinical advantage to the RP design that justifies its increased cost?
Answering these questions will allow surgeons to use RP designs appropriately in different demand populations.
This study was designed to address the questions of whether an RP design offers improvement in ROM, Knee Society scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores, selected Medical Outcomes Short-Form Health Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores or radiographic measures, over an APT design. The investigators' primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in these outcome measures at a minimum two year followup. A secondary hypothesis based on the anticipated long-term followup of this group was that there would be no difference in implant survival.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: