Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Not yet recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT05651997
Other study ID # AMT_MACT_OTR
Secondary ID
Status Not yet recruiting
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date June 1, 2023
Est. completion date June 1, 2032

Study information

Verified date March 2023
Source Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
Contact Robin MARTIN, MD
Phone 021 314 76 79
Email robin.martin@chuv.ch
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The major objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the MACT versus the AMT for the treatment of large cartilage defects in patellofemoral and femorotibial injuries.


Description:

Knee cartilage injuries are common, especially in young active adults, and have the potential to progress to osteoarthritis if left untreated, which would disable a large part of the population with joint functionality loss.The issue with knee cartilage remains in the fact that the tissue has very limited healing potential as it contains no blood vessels allowing a supply in cells for a proper regeneration. Many surgical techniques have been developed for cartilage repair, however, traditional methods have shown their limitations, especially in the case of large defects. More importantly, there is no consensus on novel surgical techniques. Therefore, the choice of a proper cartilage treatment becomes crucial Worldwide, because the aging population is increasing rapidly and there is a need to remain functional and independent as long as possible. The overall objective of the present study is to compare two advanced surgical techniques for the treatment of large defects in cartilage: one technique consists of a more conventional and widely used approach, which stimulates the natural repair of the tissue by making micro-holes in the bone, allowing the recruitment cells from the underneath bone marrow and stabilize them with a membrane to repair the defect (technique called enhanced microfracture or AMT); and the other technique called MACT, consists of taking patients own cartilage cells from a small biopsy and growing them on a membrane to form a cartilage tissue in vitro, which is then implanted surgically at the location of the injury. This second technique has the advantage of cellular assistance in the surgery enabling to improve the regeneration. The purpose of this study is to determine which technique (AMT or MACT) is the most appropriate to treat large cartilage injuries, in order to propose the best therapeutic option depending on the severity, size and location of the injury in the joint to the patient.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Not yet recruiting
Enrollment 80
Est. completion date June 1, 2032
Est. primary completion date June 1, 2028
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender All
Age group 15 Years to 50 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Patients aged between 15-50 years - Symptomatic chondral and osteochondral defect, grade III and IV according to the ICRS classification, and size between 2.5 and 15 cm2 - Failure of a conservative treatment - Patient in good general condition, documented by an ASA score = 2 (American Society of Anesthesiologists) - Patient considered compliant and able to participate in rehabilitation and pre- and post-operative follow-up - Consent to participate in the study Exclusion Criteria: - All inflammatory and synovial pathologies - Diffuse or mirror lesions - An unfavorable biomechanical environment - Obesity grade II or higher, with a BMI>35 kg/m2 - Active smoking/ active drug dependency (hard drugs) - Poor compliance - The patient is already part of another clinical trial that may compromise the present study - Vulnerable populations (except minors aged 15-18 years) - Presence of open growth plate (15-18 years) - Pregnancy or planned pregnancy during the study (MRI-related contra-indication) - Proven allergy to penicillin and gentamicin (for MACT group) and porcine collagen (for both groups) For final inclusion, an additional exclusion criteria will be assessed after randomization: - Positive to HIV, HBV, HCV, syphilis.

Study Design


Intervention

Procedure:
MACT
A biopsy of healthy cartilage is taken from a non-weight bearing area of the knee joint during an arthroscopic procedure. The biopsy is processed in the GMP accredited laboratory to isolate and amplify chondrocytes. The cells are seeded and cultured on a collagen matrix (Chondro-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma) The membrane is implanted and sutured onto the injured site.
AMT
This treatment combines the microfracture procedure with the application of a bilayer matrix of porcine type I/III collagen (Chondro-Gide, Geistlich Pharma) and the supplementation of autologous bone.

Locations

Country Name City State
Switzerland Hôpital Fribourgeois- HFR Fribourg
Switzerland Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois - CHUV Lausanne Vaud

Sponsors (3)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Lee Ann LAURENT APPLEGATE, Virginie PHILIPPE

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Switzerland, 

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Other Self-reported physical pain and function are assessed by International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC) A score will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score). Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the patellofemoral and femorotibial joints.
Other Rate of implantation-associated complications: serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious adverse reactions (SARs) Post-implantation data collection: Types, probability and severity of treatment (inflammation, infection,pain, joint effusion, delamination, transplant rejection, fibrocartilage, incomplete cartilage repair). Up to 60 months.
Other The cartilage repair is assesed by Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair MOCART scoring system is based on MRI analysis. A score in points will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 points (no repair) to 100 points (excellent cartilage defect repair) Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation.
Primary Patellofemoral joint-related function and quality-of-life are assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). KOOS includes five subscales: symptoms, pain, activities of daily living, function in sport/recreation, and knee-related quality of life. A score in points for each subscale will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score). Self-assessment by the patient Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the patellofemoral joint.
Secondary Femorotibial joint-related function and quality-of-life are assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). KOOS includes five subscales: symptoms, pain, activities of daily living, function in sport/recreation, and knee-related quality of life. A score in points for each subscale will be calculated, and it ranges from 0 (worst score) to 100 (best score).Self-assessment by the patient Change from baseline to 3, 6 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months post-implantation in the femorotibial joint.
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Recruiting NCT04840147 - A Comparison of JointRep® and Microfracture in Repair of Cartilage Lesions on the Femoral Condyle or Trochlea, N/A
Recruiting NCT05942430 - Autologous Costal Osteochondral Transplantation for Talar Osteochondral Lesions N/A
Recruiting NCT04296487 - Introduction of ACI for Cartilage Repair N/A
Recruiting NCT04744402 - Phase 2 Clinical Trial of CartiLife® in the United States Phase 2
Recruiting NCT03588975 - A Study of MACI in Patients Aged 10 to 17 Years With Symptomatic Chondral or Osteochondral Defects of the Knee Phase 3
Recruiting NCT03219307 - NOVOCART 3D Treatment Following Microfracture Failure Phase 3
Active, not recruiting NCT05051332 - Phase 3 Clinical Trial of CartiLife® in Korea Phase 3
Recruiting NCT05402072 - AMIC Compared With Microfracture for Focal Articular Cartilage Damage of the Hip Phase 1
Completed NCT00719576 - Superiority of MACI® Versus Microfracture Treatment in Patients With Symptomatic Articular Cartilage Defects in the Knee Phase 3
Not yet recruiting NCT01984450 - A Study to Compare Two Techniques for Articular Cartilage Repair:ACIC Vs. MCIC N/A