search
Back to results

Orthosensor vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

Primary Purpose

Osteoarthritis, Knee

Status
Active
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Verasense
Sponsored by
Columbia University
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Osteoarthritis, Knee

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - 85 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Primary total knee replacement

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Revision knee surgery
  • Prior knee surgery

Sites / Locations

  • NewYork-Presbyterian Lawrence Hospital
  • Columbia University Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

No Intervention

Experimental

Arm Label

Non-Sensor Group

Sensor Group

Arm Description

Patients will undergo standard total knee replacement surgery without Verasense assisted balancing technology.

Patients will undergo total knee replacement surgery with Verasense assisted balancing technology.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Veterans RAND12 Item Health Survey
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.

Secondary Outcome Measures

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).
Ambulation (distance)
ambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy postoperatively
Range of motion
physical examination of knee
KOOS Knee Survey
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.

Full Information

First Posted
July 26, 2018
Last Updated
September 30, 2021
Sponsor
Columbia University
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03628378
Brief Title
Orthosensor vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty
Official Title
Outcomes in Free-hand Versus Sensor-guided Balancing in Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
September 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Active, not recruiting
Study Start Date
December 20, 2017 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
September 20, 2022 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
December 20, 2022 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Columbia University

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

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.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Osteoarthritis, Knee

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
130 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Non-Sensor Group
Arm Type
No Intervention
Arm Description
Patients will undergo standard total knee replacement surgery without Verasense assisted balancing technology.
Arm Title
Sensor Group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Patients will undergo total knee replacement surgery with Verasense assisted balancing technology.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Verasense
Other Intervention Name(s)
Orthosensor
Intervention Description
Ligamentous balancing device
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Veterans RAND12 Item Health Survey
Description
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.
Time Frame
1 year
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Visual Analogue Scale pain level
Description
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
Title
Ambulation (distance)
Description
ambulation distance during inpatient physical therapy postoperatively
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Range of motion
Description
physical examination of knee
Time Frame
1 year
Title
KOOS Knee Survey
Description
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.
Time Frame
1 year

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
85 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Primary total knee replacement Exclusion Criteria: Revision knee surgery Prior knee surgery
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jeffrey Geller, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Columbia University
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
NewYork-Presbyterian Lawrence Hospital
City
Bronxville
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10708
Country
United States
Facility Name
Columbia University Medical Center
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10032
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
17403800
Citation
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28481384
Citation
Chow JC, Breslauer L. The Use of Intraoperative Sensors Significantly Increases the Patient-Reported Rate of Improvement in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2017 Jul 1;40(4):e648-e651. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170503-01. Epub 2017 May 8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24768544
Citation
Jacobs CA, Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T. Patient and intraoperative factors influencing satisfaction two to five years after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Aug;29(8):1576-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.022. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22532699
Citation
Judge A, Arden NK, Cooper C, Kassim Javaid M, Carr AJ, Field RE, Dieppe PA. Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Oct;51(10):1804-13. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes075. Epub 2012 Apr 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21411706
Citation
Kim KW, Han JW, Cho HJ, Chang CB, Park JH, Lee JJ, Lee SB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Association between comorbid depression and osteoarthritis symptom severity in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 16;93(6):556-63. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01344.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24684911
Citation
Camarata DA. Soft tissue balance in total knee arthroplasty with a force sensor. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014 Apr;45(2):175-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.12.001. Epub 2014 Feb 1.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29179222
Citation
Churchill JL, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Gap-Balancing versus Measured Resection Technique in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison Study. J Knee Surg. 2018 Jan;31(1):13-16. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608820. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12730928
Citation
Krackow KA. Instability in total knee arthroplasty: loose as a goose. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr;18(3 Suppl 1):45-7. doi: 10.1054/arth.2003.50069.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24269069
Citation
Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Elson LC, Anderson CR. A new method for defining balance: promising short-term clinical outcomes of sensor-guided TKA. J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):955-60. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.020. Epub 2013 Oct 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11716402
Citation
Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Nov;(392):315-8. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00041.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
27155997
Citation
Meneghini RM, Ziemba-Davis MM, Lovro LR, Ireland PH, Damer BM. Can Intraoperative Sensors Determine the "Target" Ligament Balance? Early Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Oct;31(10):2181-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.046. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17224835
Citation
Incavo SJ, Wild JJ, Coughlin KM, Beynnon BD. Early revision for component malrotation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 May;458:131-6. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180332d97.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24103411
Citation
Walker PS, Meere PA, Bell CP. Effects of surgical variables in balancing of total knee replacements using an instrumented tibial trial. Knee. 2014 Jan;21(1):156-61. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.09.002. Epub 2013 Sep 19.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28109758
Citation
Geller JA, Lakra A, Murtaugh T. The Use of Electronic Sensor Device to Augment Ligament Balancing Leads to a Lower Rate of Arthrofibrosis After Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017 May;32(5):1502-1504. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.019. Epub 2016 Dec 24.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
35394462
Citation
Sarpong NO, Held MB, Grosso MJ, Herndon CL, Santos W, Lakra A, Shah RP, Cooper HJ, Geller JA. No Benefit to Sensor-guided Balancing Compared With Freehand Balancing in TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Aug 1;480(8):1535-1544. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002168. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Orthosensor vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs