Skip to content

Comparative Study of Navigation-assisted OrthoPilot® Elite and Robotic-assisted MAKO® Total Knee Arthroplasty

Randomized, Controlled, Single Center Observational Study to Compare the Safety and Performance of Navigation-assisted OrthoPilot® Elite and Robotic-assisted MAKO® Total Knee Arthroplasty

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05980442
Acronym
ORMAK
Enrollment
140
Registered
2023-08-08
Start date
2024-07-03
Completion date
2028-12-01
Last updated
2026-03-27

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

Conditions

Joint Diseases, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Posttraumatic Arthropathy, Rheumatoid Arthritis of Knee

Keywords

computer assisted orthopedic surgery, robotic assisted orthopedic surgery, orthopedic navigation, total knee arthroplasty, total knee replacement

Brief summary

Randomized, controlled, single center observational study to compare the safety and performance of navigation-assisted OrthoPilot Elite and robotic-assisted MAKO total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of the study is the comparison of the clinical outcome between navigated and robotic-assisted TKA. The hypothesis of the study is that both treatments achieve similar results regarding functional and clinical aspects.

Interventions

Total knee arthroplasty with Columbus® total knee endoprosthesis using the OrthoPilot® Elite navigation system

DEVICERobot assisted total knee arthroplasty

Total knee arthroplasty with Triathlon® total knee endoprosthesis using the MAKO® robot system

Sponsors

Aesculap AG
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Indication for a TKA with a fixed-bearing total knee endoprosthesis * Written informed consent for participating in the clinical study

Exclusion criteria

* Patient age \<18 years and \>90 years * Patient not willing to participate at the follow-up * Pregnancy * retropatellar arthrosis requiring patella resurfacing * American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) Classification \>3

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Functional outcome of the Knee Surgery measured by the Knee Society Score (KSS) (functional component)one year postoperativelyFunctional result one year postoperatively measured with the functional component of the Knee Society Score (KSS). The KSS is an examiner-administrated standard clinical evaluation tool reporting results for patients undergoing TKA. It separates findings in the operated knee (kKSS) score from findings related to the patient's function (fKSS), which might be affected by co-morbidities. The two sub-scores are reported separately ranging from 0 points (worst result) to 100 points (best results), as well as summarized score, total KSS. Final grading of total KSS results Scores of 160 to 200 will be rated as excellent, 140 to 159 as good, 120 to 139 as fair, and less than 120 as poor.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Survival of the implant componentsone year postoperativelyKaplan-Meier Analysis is a standard statistical method to describe the survival of human subjects or medical products over a defined time period. The revision-free survival rate is the performance indicator of the product under investigation and confirms the clinical outcome of the knee prosthesis. Information on survival of the implant will be collected.
Clinical outcome of the Knee Surgery measured by the Knee Society Score (KSS) (clinical component)one year postoperativelyFunctional result one year postoperatively measured with the functional component of the Knee Society Score (KSS). The KSS is an examiner-administrated standard clinical evaluation tool reporting results for patients undergoing TKA. It separates findings in the operated knee (kKSS) score from findings related to the patient's function (fKSS), which might be affected by co-morbidities. The two sub-scores are reported separately ranging from 0 points (worst result) to 100 points (best results), as well as summarized score, total KSS. Final grading of total KSS results Scores of 160 to 200 will be rated as excellent, 140 to 159 as good, 120 to 139 as fair, and less than 120 as poor.
Quality of Life [EQ-5D-5L]one year postoperativelyEQ-5D is a standardized 5-dimension (5D) 5-level (5L) measure of the health status and is developed by the EuroQol Group in order to have a simple and generic measure for clinical and economic assessment. Instructions for the user are directly included into the questionnaire and it consists of two pages. One cover five different dimensions (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) and the other one the EQ visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). The VAS scale records the self rated health status of the patient from the level "the worst health you can imagine" to "the best health you can imagine".
Anterior knee painone year postoperativelyAnterior knee pain is used to evaluate the performance of the implantation and the implant itself. Rating is classified according to the description of Waters and Bentley in four dimensions: 0 (no pain), I (Mild pain that does not intrude on daily activities), II (Moderate pain that is a nuisance; patient not considering further surgery), III (Severe pain; Patient considering further surgery). The scoring is according to Feller et al. 0, 5, 10 and 15 points, respectively.
Comparison of Radiographic alignmentone year postoperativelyAlignment (femoral-knee baseline angle, tibial-knee baseline angle, femoral-tibial angle (mechanical))
Comparison of Radiographic statusone year postoperativelypotential presence of radiolucency at the interface between implant and bone on femoral and tibial components will be analyzed
(Serious) Adverse EventsDuring the course of the study up to one year postoperativelyDuring the course of the study, any upcoming intra- or postoperative (serious) adverse device events or effects ((S)AE) related or not related to the product under investigation, will be documented. The total number of (S)AEs will be summarized and further evaluated by the sponsor and reported according to local legislation and necessity. Recorded complications will be categorized and analyzed in order to assess the safety of the investigational product.

Countries

Germany

Contacts

CONTACTKristin Maier, Dr.
info@aesculap.de+49746195
CONTACTMarius Selig
info@aesculap.de+49746195
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORHans-Joachim Riesner, PD Dr. med.

Bundeswehr Krankenhaus Ulm

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 28, 2026