search
Back to results

Multicenter Study for Robotic Arm-assisted THA 4.0 System: Hip Spine Relationship

Primary Purpose

Osteoarthritis, Hip, Hip Disease

Status
Active
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
MAKO THA 4.0 System
Sponsored by
American Hip Institute
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Osteoarthritis, Hip focused on measuring Robotic-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty, MAKOplasty

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Requires primary total hip arthroplasty surgery
  • Willing and able to comply with postoperative follow up requirements
  • at least 18 years of age
  • sign an IRB approved informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • body mass index >40
  • Skeletally immature
  • patient with active infection or suspected latent infection in or about joint
  • bone stock inadequate for support or fixation of the prosthesis
  • Neuromuscular disorders, muscle atrophy, or vascular deficient in the affected limb
  • Ankylosing spondylitis

Sites / Locations

  • American Hip Institute

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm Type

Experimental

Arm Label

Mako THA 4.0 group

Arm Description

Hip system used: femoral stem (Accolade II), acetabular cup (Trident II or MDM if necessary), femoral head (ceramic or metal head compatible with Accolade II), acetabular insert (X3 Trident II or MDM liner when using MDM cup). Mako THA 4.0 software also will be used.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Computed Tomography scan. Placement accuracy of acetabular cup and femoral stem
Using computed tomography to assess placement accuracy, Measured in degrees

Secondary Outcome Measures

Pelvic tilt
measured preoperatively and intraoperatively in sitting and standing positions
Virtual range-of-motion
measured preoperatively and intraoperatively in sitting and standing positions using virtual range of motion impingement modeling
Patient satisfaction
Measured in a scale of 0-10 to determine how satisfied a patient is with their procedure. A score of 10 indicates most satisfied, a score of 0 is least satisfied.
Harris Hip Score
Questionnaire. A measure of functionality of the operated hip. Measured scale: 0-100. Lower score means worse functional outcome.
Forgotten Joint Score
Assess likelihood the patient has forgotten that they had a hip replacement. Measured scale: 0-100. Higher score means better feeling of normalcy.
Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
Assess pain and function. Measured scale: 0-100. Higher the score, the greater the outcome and patient experience.

Full Information

First Posted
November 18, 2020
Last Updated
February 1, 2023
Sponsor
American Hip Institute
Collaborators
Stryker Orthopaedics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04646096
Brief Title
Multicenter Study for Robotic Arm-assisted THA 4.0 System: Hip Spine Relationship
Official Title
Multicenter Study for Robotic Arm-assisted THA 4.0 System With Integration of Pelvic Tilt and ROM Assessments: Implant Position Accuracy and the Hip Spine Relationship
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
February 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Active, not recruiting
Study Start Date
January 1, 2021 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
January 1, 2024 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
January 1, 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
American Hip Institute
Collaborators
Stryker Orthopaedics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

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.
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The current study is a multi-center study to assess precision and accuracy of the robotic system with new software.
Detailed Description
Robotic-arm assisted surgery aims to reduce errors and improve accuracy for implant position in total hip arthroplasty (THA). In THA implant positioning plays a pivotal role in good clinical outcomes and reduces long-term wear, therefore, technology has been developed to help surgeons achieve more accurate implant position consistently. Computer-assisted navigation provides surgeon with knowledge to help guide surgeons intra-operatively with some systems computed tomography (CT)-based, others fluoroscopy based, and others imageless systems. Computer navigation has been shown to accurately place components, but does not provide the ability for patient specific pre-operative planning that CT- based robotics allows. While some may argue that robotic-arm assisted THA is more accurate, others argue that the cost and learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted THA is not more accurate with no long-term clinical benefits. Robotic arm-assisted THA has been shown to improve accuracy of component placement and reduce outliers. Kayani et al reviewed 100 cases performed by a single surgeon with 50 THAs performed manually and 50 robotic arm-assisted. In this study, Kayani did not find a learning curve associated with achieving accuracy using the robotic arm-assisted technology; however, there was a 12 case learning curve for both himself and his operating staff that increased operative time [9]. Nodzo et al evaluated the use of the robotic arm-assisted THA using post-operative CT scans and found that both the acetabular and femoral component position were significantly accurate when compared to the intra-op position. Kamara et al reviewed a single surgeon case series to assess acetabular accuracy and found that 76% of manual THAs were within the surgeons' target zone compared to 97% of his robotic arm-assisted THAs, concluding that adoption of robotic arm-assisted THA provided significant improvement in acetabular component positioning during THA. Similarly, Redmond et al found that although there was a learning curve associated with robotic arm-assisted THA, operative time decreased with experience and acetabular component outliers decreased suggesting that while there is a learning curve with robotic arm-assisted THA the clinical benefits are better implant positioning and decreased outliers. Illgen et al reported that the improved acetabular accuracy in robotic arm-assisted THA significantly reduced dislocation rates when compared to manual THA. Bukowski et al reported robotic arm-assisted THA clinical outcomes at a minimum of 1 year and found that patients who underwent a robotic arm-assisted THA has higher clinical outcomes compared to a manual group, however, there have been no large multicenter studies that assess clinical outcomes after robotic arm-assisted THA. In conjunction with numerous other patient-specific and surgical factors, such as age, sex, comorbidities, surgical approach, component selection, and impingement, component positioning is often cited as an important factor in optimizing THA stability. Lewinnek et al. defined the "safe zone" for component position as 40⸰±10⸰ of cup inclination and 15⸰±10⸰ of cup anteversion to minimize dislocation risk. However, recent studies have shown that not only do components continue to dislocate when placed in this zone, but that the majority of THA dislocations are positioned in this safe zone to begin with. Compounding this issue is the growing body of evidence showing that the acetabular component is not static in nature, as was the assumption with Lewinnek's safe zone, but rather dynamically changing with movement of the pelvis and spine during postural and positional changes. Alterations of the dynamic relationship between the hip, spine, and pelvis in patients with hip-spine pathology during movements such as transitioning from standing to sitting affects typical pelvic biomechanical accommodation, resulting in THA component impingement, instability, and dislocation. Therefore, patients with spinopelvic pathology secondary to arthritis, spinal fusion, or spinal deformity are more prone to dislocation and revision following primary THA. The standard modality for assessing hip component position postoperatively is a 2D anteroposterior radiograph, due to low radiation dose and low cost. However, hip replacement components are placed in a 3-dimensional pelvis and femur, and therefore an anteroposterior radiograph alone may not give accurate information on the anteversion of the acetabular or femoral component. Studies have shown that cup anteversion measured with radiographs can have serious deviations with a substantial error range (mean deviation +1.74°, range -16.6° to 29.8°). This is attributed to the fact that radiographs cannot control for pelvic rotation and/or tilt. Recently a limited number of studies have started to use the other imaging modalities for understanding pelvic tilt in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Osteoarthritis, Hip, Hip Disease
Keywords
Robotic-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty, MAKOplasty

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Single Group Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
N/A
Enrollment
35 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Mako THA 4.0 group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Hip system used: femoral stem (Accolade II), acetabular cup (Trident II or MDM if necessary), femoral head (ceramic or metal head compatible with Accolade II), acetabular insert (X3 Trident II or MDM liner when using MDM cup). Mako THA 4.0 software also will be used.
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
MAKO THA 4.0 System
Intervention Description
Measure how the accuracy and precision of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) for placement accuracy of implant position in both the anterior and posterior approach.. The intervention will assess the precision of the MAKO system in placing hip components according to plan. It will compare hip angles executed by the Mako system intraoperatively with the 'gold standard' of 3D computer tomography (CT) scans. The postoperative CT scan can show the precision of the MAKO system by accurately determining the location of hip replacements in patients after surgery.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Computed Tomography scan. Placement accuracy of acetabular cup and femoral stem
Description
Using computed tomography to assess placement accuracy, Measured in degrees
Time Frame
6 weeks postoperatively
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Pelvic tilt
Description
measured preoperatively and intraoperatively in sitting and standing positions
Time Frame
Preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 1 year
Title
Virtual range-of-motion
Description
measured preoperatively and intraoperatively in sitting and standing positions using virtual range of motion impingement modeling
Time Frame
Preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 1 year
Title
Patient satisfaction
Description
Measured in a scale of 0-10 to determine how satisfied a patient is with their procedure. A score of 10 indicates most satisfied, a score of 0 is least satisfied.
Time Frame
1 year postoperative
Title
Harris Hip Score
Description
Questionnaire. A measure of functionality of the operated hip. Measured scale: 0-100. Lower score means worse functional outcome.
Time Frame
preoperative and 1 year postoperative
Title
Forgotten Joint Score
Description
Assess likelihood the patient has forgotten that they had a hip replacement. Measured scale: 0-100. Higher score means better feeling of normalcy.
Time Frame
1 year postoperative
Title
Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
Description
Assess pain and function. Measured scale: 0-100. Higher the score, the greater the outcome and patient experience.
Time Frame
1 year postoperative

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Requires primary total hip arthroplasty surgery Willing and able to comply with postoperative follow up requirements at least 18 years of age sign an IRB approved informed consent Exclusion Criteria: body mass index >40 Skeletally immature patient with active infection or suspected latent infection in or about joint bone stock inadequate for support or fixation of the prosthesis Neuromuscular disorders, muscle atrophy, or vascular deficient in the affected limb Ankylosing spondylitis
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Benjamin G Domb, MD
Organizational Affiliation
American Hip Institute
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
American Hip Institute
City
Des Plaines
State/Province
Illinois
ZIP/Postal Code
60018
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
30295538
Citation
Nodzo SR, Chang CC, Carroll KM, Barlow BT, Banks SA, Padgett DE, Mayman DJ, Jerabek SA. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study. Bone Joint J. 2018 Oct;100-B(10):1303-1309. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10-BJJ-2018-0201.R1.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Multicenter Study for Robotic Arm-assisted THA 4.0 System: Hip Spine Relationship

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs