Skip to content

Reciprocating Medical Devices - a Study of a New Safety Device

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Reciprocating Procedure Device Versus the Conventional Syringe in Syringe-and-Needle Procedures

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00651625
Acronym
RPD
Enrollment
437
Registered
2008-04-03
Start date
2004-11-30
Completion date
2010-08-31
Last updated
2016-03-02

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cancer, Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Thyroid Nodule, Trauma

Keywords

arthrocentesis, injections, anesthesia, biopsy, aspiration, syringe, safety, pain

Brief summary

The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe and needle procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the RPD with one arm with and without ultrasound guidance. The RPD is designed to be safer, faster, less painful, and more effective for the patient, and the mechanics of the RPD are intended to provide the physician with better needle control, resulting in less needle trauma to patient tissues, and thus, reduced bleeding and pain for the patient. This clinical trial will address whether the RPD is indeed superior to the conventional syringe for shots, injections, and needle procedures, and whether it is a safer, less painful syringe.

Detailed description

\* BACKGROUND The syringe is an ancient device designed principally to inject medications. However, because of the inherent biomechanics of the human hand and the interaction of the hand with the piston, the syringe is very stable and easily controlled the injection phase, but is extremely unstable and difficult to control in the aspiration phase. New reciprocating technology that accommodates the biomechanics of hand function has great promise of improving the stability and safety of hand-held devices, including procedure syringes. \* EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODS The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures accomplished either with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP). Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the reciprocating syringe. The following syringe procedures will be studied: 1) local anesthesia, 2) centesis (arthrocentesis, paracentesis, thoracentesis, amniocentesis, pericardiocentesis), 3) aspiration and puncture (aspiration of bursa, cyst, abscess, shunt, bone marrow, and other syringe aspiration procedures), 4) injection of a therapeutic or diagnostic substance into a joint, bursa, vessel, or other body structure, 5) fine needle biopsy with syringe vacuum of a mass or tissue, 6) irrigation procedures (wound, bladder, and other irrigation procedures), and 7) vascular access (introduction of a wire, catheter, or sheath into a blood vessel), and 8) with and without ultrasound guidance. In a subject with multiple individual procedure sites, or requires multiple separate biopsies, each will be randomized between the two syringes, and each biopsy or fluid sample will be analyzed separately (as is medically appropriate). The physicians who will perform the syringe procedures will be those physicians who usually perform the syringe procedures and are credentialed to do so. Outcome data collection will occur first by one of the investigators observing the procedure and collecting the data by real time interview and by chart review including cost analysis. Outcome data will include effectiveness (preprocedural pain, pain at 2 weeks post procedure, and pain at 6 months postprocedure), procedure time, patient pain, operator satisfaction, trauma to tissues, complications, diagnostic yield, overall medical care costs and hospital stay. Retrospective review of 30 charts of the device used clinically has also been approved (2006). Analysis of data will be performed by a statistician blinded to treatment group. \*SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed study will be the first to study the clinical performance characteristics of a medical device that incorporates the new reciprocating technology designed to take advantage of the inherent biomechanical stability characteristics of the human hand. The preclinical studies presented in the preliminary data demonstrate markedly enhanced device performance characteristics, and much greater control and stability, strongly suggesting that reciprocating devices will be safer, more effective, more economical, and provide better patient outcomes.

Interventions

DEVICEReciprocating Procedure Device (RPD) - AVANCA Re No. 1091001

The RPD is a safety syringe device that is hypothesized to be safer, less painful, and more effective for patients undergoing a syringe and needle procedure (please see arm #1).

DEVICEconventional syringe - BD Ref 309604

the conventional syringe or the RPD will be used for syringe and needle procedures performed by physicians.

Sponsors

University of New Mexico
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* A syringe and needle procedure is required for the normal customary care of the patient

Exclusion criteria

* hemorrhagic diathesis, * use of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents child or susceptible population

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)2 weeks0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= no pain, and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the primary outcome measure.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Aspirated Fluid Volumeduring procedureAspirated fluid volume during procedure
Adverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards
Physician Satisfactionduring procedure0- 10 cm visual analogue satisfaction scale (VASS) 0-10 cm VASS at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VASS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= completely dissatisfied, and 10 = completely satsified. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the outcome measure

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

dates from 2004 to August 2010, recruited from medical clinic

Pre-assignment details

patients recruited immediately at point of contact

Participants by arm

ArmCount
1Conventional Syringe
The intervention is the use of the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) with and without ultrasound guidance in a syringe and needle procedure in comparison to a conventional syringe. The RPD is used to performed the syringe and needle procedure and outcome (effect of procedure (pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months compared to preprocedural pain scores), and procedural pain (pain scores during procedure) - are determined. Thus, pain scores as measured by the standard 10 cm Visual Analogue Pain Score are used to primary outcome as is standard in the field of pain. These scores from the two treatment arms are then compared statistically with each other by appropriate methods. It is hypothesized that the RPD will be more effective (reduced pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months) and less pain (reduced procedural pain scores) compared to the same procedure with the conventional syringe.
219
2RPD Syring
Conventional Syringe - The conventional syringe is used to performed the syringe and needle procedure and outcome (effect of procedure (pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months compared to preprocedural pain scores), and procedural pain (pain scores during procedure) are determined). The comparison is with the same procedure performed with the RPD syringe with and without ultrasound. It is hypothesized that the RPD will be more effective (reduced pain scores at 2 weeks and 6 months) and less pain (reduced procedural pain scores) compared to the same procedure with the conventional syringe.
218
Total437

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic2RPD Syring1Conventional SyringeTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
218 Participants219 Participants437 Participants
Age, Continuous51.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.8
52.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
52.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.3
Region of Enrollment
United States
218 participants219 participants437 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
177 Participants175 Participants352 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
41 Participants44 Participants85 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 2190 / 218
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 2190 / 218

Outcome results

Primary

Pain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)

0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VAS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= no pain, and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the primary outcome measure.

Time frame: 2 weeks

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
1Conventional SyringePain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)5.2 cmStandard Deviation 2.7
2RPD SyringePain Using VAS (Visual Analogue Pain Scale)6.2 cmStandard Deviation 2.9
Secondary

Adverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)

Time frame: during procedure, 2 weeks afterwards, and 6 months afterwards

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
1Conventional SyringeAdverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)0 participants
2RPD SyringeAdverse Outcomes (Hemorrhage, Infection, Hematoma, Extravasation)0 participants
Secondary

Aspirated Fluid Volume

Aspirated fluid volume during procedure

Time frame: during procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
1Conventional SyringeAspirated Fluid Volume7.2 mlStandard Deviation 3.1
2RPD SyringeAspirated Fluid Volume14.5 mlStandard Deviation 4.1
Secondary

Physician Satisfaction

0- 10 cm visual analogue satisfaction scale (VASS) 0-10 cm VASS at 2 weeks compared to 0-10 cm VASS pain scale at 0 weeks where 0= completely dissatisfied, and 10 = completely satsified. The difference (2 week VAS-0 week VAS) is the outcome measure

Time frame: during procedure

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
1Conventional SyringePhysician Satisfaction6.4 cmStandard Deviation 2.1
2RPD SyringePhysician Satisfaction8.5 cmStandard Deviation 3.1
Comparison: group comparisons using t-test and confidence intervals.p-value: 0.05t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 30, 2026