Osteoarthritis of Knee
Conditions
Brief summary
1. To determine whether the low-dose, biplanar x-ray imaging (EOS) has the same accuracy as computed axial tomography (CT) 2. To validate low-dose, biplanar x-ray imaging (EOS) as a tool to evaluate 3-dimensional alignment of Total Knee Replacement implants. 3. To evaluate differences in total knee replacement implant alignment in patients whose arthroplasty is performed using manual or custom instrumentation derived from preoperative CT
Detailed description
Achieving optimal prosthetic alignment of the femoral, tibial and patellar components during Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is of great importance as it contributes to better function, less pain and improved quality of life.TKR requires accuracy in the execution of bone cuts in the correct orientation to the coronal, sagittal and axial planes. Malposition potentially leads to increased mechanical stress on the bearing surfaces and inevitably to earlier loosening. Computed Axial Tomography (CT) is the gold standard technique to evaluate implant alignment in the coronal, sagittal and axial planes. As such, CT has imaging has been used to create custom instrumentation with purported likely improvement in surgical outcomes. Customized instrumentation created from a preoperative CT has been shown to be safe and effective, with no reported difference in patient outcomes and similar total knee arthroplasty component alignment. However, taking into consideration CT's high levels of radiation, cost expenses and its inability to obtain images of the limb in weight-bearing position, CT scan cannot be used routinely as a postoperative tool to evaluate TKR implant positioning. The imaging system manufactured by EOS Imaging (formerly Biospace Med, Paris) is a biplanar, low-dose radiation, full body, high resolution, radiological imaging system allowing simultaneous acquisition in the coronal and sagittal planes and in standing position.EOS' main benefits are the considerable reduction in radiation dose (up to 1000 times less than for CT and ten times less than the plain radiography) by using a gaseous detector. George Charpak, the inventor, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1992 for this work. Moreover, the EOS system can provide 3D images by using the appropriate software algorithms, thus providing a low-radiation alternative to CT.
Interventions
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Radiographically confirmed diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) * Failure of non-operative treatment for the diagnosis of symptomatic osteoarthritis * Age greater than 18 years * Desire to proceed with elective TKR * Completion of informed consent and signature of written consent form
Exclusion criteria
* Ligamentous instability that may necessitate a constrained TKR implant * Retained hardware in the distal femur or proximal tibia of the operative extremity * Medical contraindication to undergo preoperative CT, or inability to tolerate preoperative CT
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Post-Operative Hip-Knee-Angle (HKA) | Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op | Measured HKA change from pre-operative EOS longstanding X-ray to post-operative EOS at 6wks. comparing groups receiving manual instrumentation versus custom instrumentation |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Tibial Varus Deformity | Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op | Measured change between pre-operative planning report & post-operative EOS longstanding radiograph in varus deformity of the operative joint |
| Femoral Valgus Deformity | Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op | Measured change between pre-operative planning report & post-operative EOS longstanding radiograph in varus deformity of the operative joint |
| Tibial Posterior Slope (Mean Deviation) | Pre-Operative - 6 wk. Post-Operative | Deviation from pre-operative planning template & 6 wk. post-operative longstanding EOS radiograph |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Manual (Tibia) and Manual (Femur) Knee replacement with Medacta GMK Sphere implants using manual instrumentation for both the tibia component and the femur component
Medacta GMK Sphere | 18 |
| Manual (Tibia) and Custom (Femur) Knee replacement with Medacta GMK Sphere implants using manual instrumentation for the tibia component and custom instrumentation for the femur component
Medacta GMK Sphere | 16 |
| Custom (Tibia) and Custom (Femur) Knee replacement with Medacta GMK Sphere implants using custom instrumentation for both the tibia component and the femur component
Medacta GMK Sphere | 16 |
| Custom (Tibia) and Manual (Femur) Knee replacement with Medacta GMK Sphere implants using custom instrumentation for the tibia component and manual instrumentation for the femur component
Medacta GMK Sphere | 16 |
| Total | 66 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total | Manual (Tibia) and Manual (Femur) | Manual (Tibia) and Custom (Femur) | Custom (Tibia) and Custom (Femur) | Custom (Tibia) and Manual (Femur) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 55 Participants | 18 Participants | 11 Participants | 15 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 11 Participants | 0 Participants | 5 Participants | 1 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 65.82 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.17 | 68.39 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.91 | 63.37 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.25 | 68.77 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.22 | 67.05 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.67 |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | 0 Participants | — | — | — | — |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 38 Participants | 7 Participants | 9 Participants | 10 Participants | 12 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 28 Participants | 11 Participants | 7 Participants | 6 Participants | 4 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 18 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 18 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 18 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 | 0 / 16 |
Outcome results
Post-Operative Hip-Knee-Angle (HKA)
Measured HKA change from pre-operative EOS longstanding X-ray to post-operative EOS at 6wks. comparing groups receiving manual instrumentation versus custom instrumentation
Time frame: Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op
Population: Sub group analysis of only participants who received both manual or both custom instrumentations.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Component Manual Instrumentation | Post-Operative Hip-Knee-Angle (HKA) | 2.14 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.79 |
| Total Component Custom Instrumentation | Post-Operative Hip-Knee-Angle (HKA) | 3.06 Degrees | Standard Deviation 2.33 |
Femoral Valgus Deformity
Measured change between pre-operative planning report & post-operative EOS longstanding radiograph in varus deformity of the operative joint
Time frame: Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op
Population: Combined analysis of participants who received manual vs custom femoral instrumentation.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Component Manual Instrumentation | Femoral Valgus Deformity | 1.53 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.22 |
| Total Component Custom Instrumentation | Femoral Valgus Deformity | 1.76 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
Tibial Posterior Slope (Mean Deviation)
Deviation from pre-operative planning template & 6 wk. post-operative longstanding EOS radiograph
Time frame: Pre-Operative - 6 wk. Post-Operative
Population: Combined analysis of participants who received manual vs custom tibial instrumentation
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Component Manual Instrumentation | Tibial Posterior Slope (Mean Deviation) | 2.70 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.56 |
| Total Component Custom Instrumentation | Tibial Posterior Slope (Mean Deviation) | 2.43 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.78 |
Tibial Varus Deformity
Measured change between pre-operative planning report & post-operative EOS longstanding radiograph in varus deformity of the operative joint
Time frame: Pre-operative, 6 wks. post-op
Population: Analysis combining groups receiving manual vs custom tibial instrumentation.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Component Manual Instrumentation | Tibial Varus Deformity | 1.00 Degrees | Standard Deviation 0.79 |
| Total Component Custom Instrumentation | Tibial Varus Deformity | 1.38 Degrees | Standard Deviation 1.21 |