Skip to content

Vanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee Clinical Evaluation

Vanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee Clinical Evaluation

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00753090
Enrollment
326
Registered
2008-09-16
Start date
2009-06-30
Completion date
2022-07-15
Last updated
2025-01-30

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

Conditions

Osteoarthritis

Brief summary

This study is being conducted on the Vanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform (DD RP) to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the DDRP components.

Detailed description

This study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Vanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee (mobile bearing knee) as compared to Vanguard Cruciate Retaining Knee (fixed bearing knee). This trial was conducted as the randomised, controlled study. Implant loosening and polyethylene wear in fixed-bearing knee prostheses were recognized as major causes of late failure. The mobile bearing knee have the theoretical advantages of potentially minimizing the polyethylene wear and reducing implant to bone interface stress in order to reduce the incidence of implant loosening. Therefore, the aims of this study were to prove the Vanguard deep dish rotating platform knee is at least as effective in clinical outcome as the widely used current design of knee replacement and better in long term survivorship. The efficacy of the device was determined by the relief of pain, restoration of function and range of motion. The durability of device was determined by the absence of revision/removal and radiological integrity. To assess the safety of the device, all post operative complications were recorded either device related or otherwise. Patient satisfaction was determined by answers to patient outcome questionnaires (Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC and Lower Extremity Activity Scale). Between June 29, 2009 and March 5th 2012, 326 cases were enrolled in the study. In total 117 cases were implanted with the Vanguard fixed bearing cruciate retaining knee; the control arm, and 209 cases were implanted with the Vanguard DDRP. All of these patients fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. From the 4 participating sites, 2 of them (both located in the Netherlands, Zuyderland Hospital and Bravis Hospital) performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In the RCT, 40 cases were assigned to the Trial Arm (Vanguard DDRP), and 51 to the control arm (Vanguard CR). The UK site enrolled cases only in the Vanguard DDRP arm and the French site enrolled in both arms, but non-randomized. Total 326 patients are enrolled in the study.

Interventions

DEVICEVanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee

Total knee replacements with the Vanguard Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee

DEVICEVanguard™ Cruciate Retaining Knee

Total knee replacements with the Vanguard Cruciate Retaining Knee

Sponsors

Zimmer Biomet
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with a pre-operative Knee Society Score of \< 70 * Patients scheduled to undergo primary total knee replacement with any of the following indication: Painful and disabled knee joint resulting from osteoarthritis, Traumatic Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis; One or more compartments are involved * Need to obtain pain relief and improve function * Ability and willingness to follow instructions, including control of weight and activity level, and to return for follow-up evaluations * A good nutritional state of the patient * Full skeletal maturity of the patient, patients who are at least 18 years of age * Patients of either sex * Consent form read, understood, and signed by patient

Exclusion criteria

Absolute contraindications include the following diagnoses: * Patients with a pre-operative Knee Society Score of \>= 70 * Infection * Osteomyelitis * Previous partial or total prosthetic knee replacement on the operative side * Patients who are less than 18 years of age * Sepsis * Patients who had body mass index \>= 40 Relative contraindications include the following factors: * Uncooperative patient or patient with neurological disorders who are incapable of following directions or who are predictably unwilling to return for follow-up examinations * Osteoporosis or marked bone loss, which may preclude proper fixation of the prosthesis * Metabolic disorders, which may impair bone formation * Osteomalacia * Distant foci of infections, which may spread to the implant site * Rapid joint destruction, marked bone loss, or bone resorption apparent on roentgenogram * Vascular insufficiency, muscular atrophy, or neuromuscular disease in the affected limb. * Incomplete or deficient soft tissue surrounding the knee

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Knee Society Score2 yearsThe Knee Society Score (KSS) is a clinician-completed questionnaire and consists of two sub-scores: an Objective score assessing pain, range of motion, anteroposterior and mediolateral stability, along with deductions for higher than normal flexion contracture, extension lag and/or varus/valgus alignment, and a Function score, assessing walking on level ground and walking up and down stairs, along with deductions for support. Each sub-score can range from 0 to 100 points, with higher scores corresponding to better outcomes, classified as Excellent: 80 - 100 points; Good: 70 - 79 points; Fair: 60 - 69 points; Poor: \< 60 points.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Knee Society Score6 weeks, 6 months, annually until all available study patients have completed two-year follow up evaluation and alternating odd years or as needed thereafter up to 10 yearsThe Knee Society Score (KSS) is a clinician-completed questionnaire and consists of two sub-scores: an Objective score assessing pain, range of motion, anteroposterior and mediolateral stability, along with deductions for higher than normal flexion contracture, extension lag and/or varus/valgus alignment, and a Function score, assessing walking on level ground and walking up and down stairs, along with deductions for support. Each sub-score can range from 0 to 100 points, with higher scores corresponding to better outcomes, classified as Excellent: 80 - 100 points; Good: 70 - 79 points; Fair: 60 - 69 points; Poor: \< 60 points.
Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle6 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperativeAssessment of patient x-rays by each site investigator: Total varus angle. This is defined as the sum of the femoral flexion (the angle between the femoral median axis and the tibial median axis) and the tibial angle (the angle between the anatomical axis of the femur and the tibia in the anteroposterior view of the knee joint) minus 180 degrees.
Survivorship10 yearsimplant survival at 10 years post surgery and is presented by the number of cases with the implants unrevised
Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 years postoperativeAssessment of patient x-rays by each site investigator: Radiolucency Femoral Radiolucency is defined as the total nr of participants with radiolucency measured on the femur in each of the 7 different zones. Tibia AP Radiolucency is defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 7 zones measured in the AP view X-ray Tibia lateral Radiolucency defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 3 zones in the lateral view X-ray Patella Radiolucency is defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 5 zones

Countries

France, Netherlands, United Kingdom

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Patients who met the criteria were introduced the study by surgeons and got a written information. By the next visit, the surgeons asked if the patients wanted to participate, and if yes, both signed the informed consent. Dutch sites performed randomized controlled trial (RCT). The UK site enrolled the Vanguard DDRP cases only and the French site enrolled both cases without randomization. The UK site was closed after 3 year follow-up, and the French site became unresponsive in 2020.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
VG DDRP (Trial Group)
This arm utilizes the Vanguard™ Deep Dish Rotating Platform Knee.
209
VG CR (Control Group)
This arm utilizes the Vanguard™ Cruciate Retaining Knee.
117
Total326

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath176
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up22
Overall StudyOther12775
Overall StudyStudy Prosthesis Removed123
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1010

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicVG DDRP (Trial Group)VG CR (Control Group)Total
Age, Continuous70.1 years69.0 years69.55 years
BMI29.7 kg/m²
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.5
30.0 kg/m²
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3
29.85 kg/m²
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.9
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Reason for surgery/indication
Osteoarthritis
200 Participants115 Participants315 Participants
Reason for surgery/indication
Other
5 Participants0 Participants5 Participants
Reason for surgery/indication
Rheumatoid arthritis
3 Participants2 Participants5 Participants
Reason for surgery/indication
Traumatic arthritis
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
134 Participants67 Participants201 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
75 Participants50 Participants125 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
17 / 2096 / 117
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 2090 / 117
serious
Total, serious adverse events
111 / 20914 / 117

Outcome results

Primary

Knee Society Score

The Knee Society Score (KSS) is a clinician-completed questionnaire and consists of two sub-scores: an Objective score assessing pain, range of motion, anteroposterior and mediolateral stability, along with deductions for higher than normal flexion contracture, extension lag and/or varus/valgus alignment, and a Function score, assessing walking on level ground and walking up and down stairs, along with deductions for support. Each sub-score can range from 0 to 100 points, with higher scores corresponding to better outcomes, classified as Excellent: 80 - 100 points; Good: 70 - 79 points; Fair: 60 - 69 points; Poor: \< 60 points.

Time frame: 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society ScoreObjective score89.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society ScoreFunction score89.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.9
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society ScoreObjective score91.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society ScoreFunction score83.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.6
Secondary

Knee Society Score

The Knee Society Score (KSS) is a clinician-completed questionnaire and consists of two sub-scores: an Objective score assessing pain, range of motion, anteroposterior and mediolateral stability, along with deductions for higher than normal flexion contracture, extension lag and/or varus/valgus alignment, and a Function score, assessing walking on level ground and walking up and down stairs, along with deductions for support. Each sub-score can range from 0 to 100 points, with higher scores corresponding to better outcomes, classified as Excellent: 80 - 100 points; Good: 70 - 79 points; Fair: 60 - 69 points; Poor: \< 60 points.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 6 months, annually until all available study patients have completed two-year follow up evaluation and alternating odd years or as needed thereafter up to 10 years

Population: Numbers of participants for both groups are lower than the enrolled number of patients, especially pre-op. This is because leg extension is not being captured for a lot of pre-op cases, and therefore no score could be calculated.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society ScorePreop (Objective Score)51.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.7
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score6 Week (Objective Score)72.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.2
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score6 Month (Objective Score)81.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.6
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score1 Year (Objective Score)85.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.8
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score2 Year (Objective Score)89.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score3 Year (Objective Score)85.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.7
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score5 Year (Objective Score)85.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.8
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score7 Year (Objective Score)86.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.3
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score10 Year (Objective Score)87.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society ScorePreop (Function Score)51.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score6 Week (Function Score)64.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.9
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score6 Month (Function Score)79.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.7
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score1 Year (Function Score)86.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.4
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score2 Year (Function Score)89.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.9
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score3 Year (Function Score)81.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.1
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score5 Year (Function Score)79.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.1
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score7 Year (Function Score)70.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.8
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Knee Society Score10 Year (Function Score)90.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score2 Year (Function Score)83.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.6
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society ScorePreop (Objective Score)53.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society ScorePreop (Function Score)55.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score6 Week (Objective Score)77.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score10 Year (Function Score)88.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.5
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score6 Month (Objective Score)86.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.1
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score6 Week (Function Score)62.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.3
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score1 Year (Objective Score)88.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.2
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score3 Year (Function Score)86.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.1
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score2 Year (Objective Score)91.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score6 Month (Function Score)78.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score3 Year (Objective Score)89.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.5
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score7 Year (Function Score)67.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.7
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score5 Year (Objective Score)92.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.6
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score1 Year (Function Score)84.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score7 Year (Objective Score)90.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score5 Year (Function Score)90.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.8
VG CR (Control Group)Knee Society Score10 Year (Objective Score)90.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.6
Secondary

Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency

Assessment of patient x-rays by each site investigator: Radiolucency Femoral Radiolucency is defined as the total nr of participants with radiolucency measured on the femur in each of the 7 different zones. Tibia AP Radiolucency is defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 7 zones measured in the AP view X-ray Tibia lateral Radiolucency defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 3 zones in the lateral view X-ray Patella Radiolucency is defined as total nr of participants with radiolucency in each of the 5 zones

Time frame: 6 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 years postoperative

Population: Note that 7 and 10-years radiographic data is limited, this is because the COVID pandemic was impacting those visits. Therefore, the 7 and 10-years information is limited, and results must be interpreted with care.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Femoral radiolucency14 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial AP radiolucency2 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial Lateral radiolucency3 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial component migration2 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Femoral component migration1 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Femoral radiolucency16 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial AP radiolucency6 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial Lateral radiolucency10 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial component migration2 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Femoral radiolucency12 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial AP radiolucency9 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency11 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Patella radiolucency3 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial component migration1 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Femoral radiolucency4 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial AP radiolucency4 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency2 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial component migration1 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Femoral radiolucency11 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial AP radiolucency7 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency5 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Patella radiolucency1 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Femoral radiolucency21 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial AP radiolucency4 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency3 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Patella radiolucency2 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial component migration3 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Femoral component migration3 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Femoral radiolucency14 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial AP radiolucency7 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency5 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial component migration1 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial AP radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Femoral radiolucency1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial AP radiolucency2 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial Lateral radiolucency1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial AP radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Weeks Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial AP radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Femoral radiolucency7 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial AP radiolucency8 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial Lateral radiolucency8 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Patella radiolucency1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency3 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency6 Months Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial AP radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Femoral radiolucency6 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial AP radiolucency4 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency6 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial AP radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Tibial component migration1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency1 Year Femoral component migration1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Femoral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial AP radiolucency1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency10 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial Lateral radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Tibial component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Patella radiolucency0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency7 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Tibial component migration1 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency5 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Radiolucency2 Year Femoral component migration0 Participants
Secondary

Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle

Assessment of patient x-rays by each site investigator: Total varus angle. This is defined as the sum of the femoral flexion (the angle between the femoral median axis and the tibial median axis) and the tibial angle (the angle between the anatomical axis of the femur and the tibia in the anteroposterior view of the knee joint) minus 180 degrees.

Time frame: 6 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperative

Population: Note that 7 and 10-years radiographic data is limited, this is because the COVID pandemic was impacting those visits. Therefore, the 7 and 10-years information is limited, and results must be interpreted with care.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle6 Months Total Valgus Angle2.9 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.7
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle6 Weeks Total Valgus Angle3.1 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.5
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle1 Year Total Valgus Angle3.1 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.7
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle2 Year Total Valgus Angle2.9 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.4
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle3 Year Total Valgus Angle3.2 DegreeStandard Deviation 4.1
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle5 Year Total Valgus Angle2.0 DegreeStandard Deviation 4.2
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle7 Year Total Valgus Angle-0.7 DegreeStandard Deviation 4.2
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle10 Year Total Valgus Angle6.6 DegreeStandard Deviation 4.1
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle10 Year Total Valgus Angle3.4 DegreeStandard Deviation 3
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle3 Year Total Valgus Angle3.4 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.8
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle6 Weeks Total Valgus Angle3.5 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.7
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle6 Months Total Valgus Angle3.9 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.2
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle7 Year Total Valgus Angle3.0 DegreeStandard Deviation 3
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle1 Year Total Valgus Angle3.9 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.3
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle5 Year Total Valgus Angle2.3 DegreeStandard Deviation 3.2
VG CR (Control Group)Radiographic Evaluation: Total Varus Angle2 Year Total Valgus Angle3.1 DegreeStandard Deviation 2.9
Secondary

Survivorship

implant survival at 10 years post surgery and is presented by the number of cases with the implants unrevised

Time frame: 10 years

Population: The UK site was closed after 3 year follow-up, and the French site became unresponsive in 2020. This explains the low number of long-term follow-up rate.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
VG DDRP (Trial Group)Survivorship178 Participants
VG CR (Control Group)Survivorship114 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026