Skip to content

Orthosensor vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

Outcomes in Free-hand Versus Sensor-guided Balancing in Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03628378
Enrollment
130
Registered
2018-08-14
Start date
2017-12-20
Completion date
2022-06-22
Last updated
2024-09-24

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

Conditions

Osteoarthritis, Knee

Brief summary

In a randomized-controlled fashion, this investigation will evaluate the use of the Verasense technology to achieve optimal TKA balance. Patients will be randomized to either: 1) undergo manual soft tissue balancing or 2) soft tissue balancing with the Verasense. The primary outcomes of interest will include patient-reported outcomes as well knee range of motion at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Secondary outcomes of interest will include pain level as assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) in the acute post-operative and follow up periods, ambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy postoperatively, surgical time, tourniquet time, amount of opioid consumption, length of hospital stay, incidence of arthrofibrosis and subsequent manipulation under anesthesia. The investigators hypothesize that the use of the Verasense technology will lead to improved soft tissue balancing in TKA and ultimately result in favorable patient-reported outcomes and postoperative knee range of motion.

Detailed description

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures performed worldwide, and if conducted properly, has proven to improve pain, knee range of motion, and ultimately quality of life. Approximately 700,000 TKAs are performed annually in the United States, and this number is projected to increase to 3.48 million annually by 2030. Unfortunately, roughly 20% of patients who undergo TKA are dissatisfied with their outcome and this number has remained stagnant for the past decade.Patient satisfaction after TKA is predominantly driven by postoperative pain and function. Outcomes in TKA are influenced by multiple factors, stemming from patient-specific factors and surgically modifiable factors. Patient specific factors include body mass index (BMI), preoperative range of motion (ROM), psychological status, and other comorbidities; examples of surgically modifiable factors include the type of prosthesis utilized, posterior condylar offset, posterior tibial slope, and soft tissue balancing. Knee arthritis is a disease not only of the condylar surfaces, but of the soft tissues as well. As such, the success of a TKA depends on the ultimate restoration of the integrity of the knee articular surfaces,necessitating two critical elements, beginning with precise osteotomies and ending with soft tissue balancing to realign the lower extremity to a neutral mechanical axis. In the last three decades, this first element has been addressed by major technological advances to perform precise and reproducible osteotomies, most recently with the development of computer-assisted navigation and validation techniques and modalities that allow osteotomies based on anatomical jigs created by CT imaging of the patient's knee. Despite these advances, little advancement has been appreciated by the second element-soft tissue balancing.While precise osteotomies are critical to the success of a TKA, they do not address ligamentous stability and balance, which if absent, leads to knee instability, stiffness, accelerated prosthetic wear, aseptic loosening, and premature implant failure. Soft tissue imbalance accounts for 35% of early TKA revisions in the United States. Soft tissue balancing in TKA has traditionally been more of an art than a science, relying exclusively on the surgeon's subjective assessment based on nebulous tactile feedback after completion of the osteotomies. The diseased soft tissues (i.e. ligaments) may be lengthened, tightened, or released to achieve balance, range of motion, and functional stability. However, these methods are numerous, variable, and above all, highly subjective. The individual experience of the surgeon, including fellowship training and procedural volume play a role in their ability to balance a knee properly. Typically, it is only after many years of experience does the surgeon develop the ability to accurately assess stability in varus, valgus, anterior and posterior planes.Objective balancing of soft tissues in TKA may contribute to a decrease in pain, improve function, patient satisfaction, and ultimately decrease the rate of revision. The need for the transformation of TKA soft tissue balancing from an art to a science has been realized by a technology that allows surgeons to objectively quantify ligament balance by offering real-time, evidence-based data during TKA. The Verasense (Orthosensor Inc., Dania, FL) is a disposable wireless device embedded with force sensors and inserted into the tibial component during the trialing phase of surgery after gross balancing, allowing real-time loading values in the medial and lateral compartments of the knee and fine-tuning of the end result by further soft tissue releases to improve balance and stability. Balance in TKA is defined as stability in the sagittal plane and less than 15 pounds difference in the medial and lateral compartments of the knee. In a multicenter study, intraoperative sensors were utilized to define balance and to correlate it with improved clinical outcomes. TKAs that had undergone said balancing were compared to unbalanced TKAs, with results showing improved Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) between balanced (172, 14.5 points) and unbalanced (145.3, 23.8 points), respectively. The authors concluded that a well-balanced TKA was the most significant contributing factor to improved postoperative outcomes. Similarly, Chow et al. investigated six-month patient-reported outcomes in a small retrospective cohort study with short-term follow up of six months comparing sensor-assisted to non-sensor-assisted TKA balancing. They reported that the KSS, Oxford Knee Score, and knee range of motion was significantly higher in the sensor-assisted cohort and that the rate of arthrofibrosis was lower in the sensor-assisted group, however, not statistically significant. Further, Geller et al. retrospectively compared the incidence of arthrofibrosis before and after the implementation of the Verasense technology to assist with ligament balancing and reported a 5% rate of arthrofibrosis prior to implementation versus 1.6% after. In this same report, median length of surgery was 83 minutes before implementation compared to 115 minutes after. The authors reported that while the implantation of the sensor increased operative time, this additional time does not have a clinical impact and that the benefits outweigh this potential increase in operative time. Multiple reports in the literature have suggested that a well-balanced TKA, which leads to increased activity levels may be part of a cascade effect, which ultimately results in higher patient-reported outcome scores. Unfortunately, soft tissue balancing is one of the only remaining aspects of TKA that has not benefited from a consensus based on quantitative measures and objective data. As the economic environment changes in medicine, coupled with a five-fold increase in TKAs performed and the subsequent need for less experienced surgeons to perform TKAs, it is imperative that the traditional subjectivity once relied upon be replaced by more empirical and clinical data to construct a scientific consensus of what balance is. In so doing, clinical outcomes may be improved, with a resultant decrease in the rate of early revisions, and ultimately significant savings in healthcare expenditures.While the literature has demonstrated a clear advantage by technology like the Verasense, previous studies have predominantly been underpowered, with short-term follow up, and unstandardized TKAs, including surgical approach, prosthetic designs, manufacturer, and above all, not randomized and controlled.

Interventions

DEVICEVerasense

Ligamentous balancing device

Sponsors

Columbia University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

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

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Primary total knee replacement

Exclusion criteria

* Revision knee surgery * Prior knee surgery

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Average Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsA normal range of motion is 0º extension (completely straight leg) to 130º (a fully flexed leg).
Average Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsThe Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-P score is derived as the sum of the 5 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Pain score and multiplying by 100.
Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS)3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsThe investigators will ask participants to answer survey questions about knee functionality on a scale of 0-100, 0 being the least functionality and 100 being the most functionality.
Average Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsSF-12 is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individual's everyday life. The SF-12 is composed of a mental component score and a physical component score. The score range for each component is 0 to 100. Scores above 50 indicate a better-than-average health-related quality of life, while scores below 50 suggest below-average health.
Average Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsSF-12 is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individual's everyday life. The SF-12 is composed of a mental component score and a physical component score. The score range for each component is 0 to 100. Scores above 50 indicate a better-than-average health-related quality of life, while scores below 50 suggest below-average health.
Average Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsThe Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-F score is derived as the sum of the 17 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Functional score and multiplying by 100.
Average Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale3 months, 1 year, 2 yearsThe Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-S score is derived as the sum of the 2 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Functional score and multiplying by 100.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Ambulation (Distance)1 weekambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy (PT) postoperatively - presented in daily PT performance in feet.
Visual Analogue Scale Pain Level1 weekPain levels on a scale from 1-10 (1 being the least amount of pain possible and 10 being the most amount of pain possible).

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Non-Sensor Group
Patients will undergo standard total knee replacement surgery without Verasense assisted balancing technology.
67
Sensor Group
Patients will undergo total knee replacement surgery with Verasense assisted balancing technology. Verasense: Ligamentous balancing device
63
Total130

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicNon-Sensor GroupSensor GroupTotal
Age, Continuous70 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9
72 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8
71 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8
BMI29 kg/m2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
30 kg/m2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
29.5 kg/m2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
67 participants63 participants130 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
47 Participants50 Participants97 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
20 Participants13 Participants33 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 670 / 63
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 670 / 63
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 670 / 63

Outcome results

Primary

Average Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)

A normal range of motion is 0º extension (completely straight leg) to 130º (a fully flexed leg).

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)3 months116 degreesStandard Deviation 13
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)1 year117 degreesStandard Deviation 13
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)2 years117 degreesStandard Deviation 12
Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)3 months113 degreesStandard Deviation 11
Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)1 year119 degreesStandard Deviation 13
Sensor GroupAverage Arc of Range of Motion (Extension to Flexion)2 years116 degreesStandard Deviation 12
Primary

Average Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component

SF-12 is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individual's everyday life. The SF-12 is composed of a mental component score and a physical component score. The score range for each component is 0 to 100. Scores above 50 indicate a better-than-average health-related quality of life, while scores below 50 suggest below-average health.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component3 months48 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component1 year46 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component2 years43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component3 months48 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component1 year45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Mental Component2 years43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Primary

Average Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component

SF-12 is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individual's everyday life. The SF-12 is composed of a mental component score and a physical component score. The score range for each component is 0 to 100. Scores above 50 indicate a better-than-average health-related quality of life, while scores below 50 suggest below-average health.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component3 months46 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component1 year45 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component2 years49 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component3 months43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component1 year46 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) - Physical Component2 years47 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Primary

Average Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-F score is derived as the sum of the 17 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Functional score and multiplying by 100.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale3 months22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale1 year21 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale2 years13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale3 months28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale1 year22 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Functional (F) Limitation Subscale2 years16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Primary

Average Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-P score is derived as the sum of the 5 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Pain score and multiplying by 100.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale3 months18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale1 year16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale2 years12 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale3 months25 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale1 year16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Pain (P) Subscale2 years12 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19
Primary

Average Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a 24-item patient-report questionnaire used to assess pain (score range 0-20), stiffness (score range 0-8), and functional limitation (score range 0-68). Higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness, and functional limitations. The WOMAC-S score is derived as the sum of the 2 item scores in the pain domain. It will be normalized and expressed on a 0-100 scale. This is done by dividing raw score by the highest possible value of the Functional score and multiplying by 100.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale3 months35 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale1 year31 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Non-Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale2 years18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale3 months37 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale1 year30 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26
Sensor GroupAverage Score on the WOMAC Stiffness (S) Subscale2 years20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27
Primary

Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS)

The investigators will ask participants to answer survey questions about knee functionality on a scale of 0-100, 0 being the least functionality and 100 being the most functionality.

Time frame: 3 months, 1 year, 2 years

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)3 months68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18
Non-Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)1 year65 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 22
Non-Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)2 years77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23
Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)3 months55 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)1 year68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Sensor GroupKnee Society Functional Score (KSFS)2 years71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 26
Secondary

Ambulation (Distance)

ambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy (PT) postoperatively - presented in daily PT performance in feet.

Time frame: 1 week

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupAmbulation (Distance)351 feetStandard Deviation 290
Sensor GroupAmbulation (Distance)361 feetStandard Deviation 263
Secondary

Visual Analogue Scale Pain Level

Pain levels on a scale from 1-10 (1 being the least amount of pain possible and 10 being the most amount of pain possible).

Time frame: 1 week

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Non-Sensor GroupVisual Analogue Scale Pain Level3.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.9
Sensor GroupVisual Analogue Scale Pain Level3.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7

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