Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05045651 |
Other study ID # |
MTU-EC-OT-1-005/55 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
August 1, 2014 |
Est. completion date |
December 1, 2018 |
Study information
Verified date |
September 2021 |
Source |
Thammasat University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Unisex knee prosthesis and patient specific knee prosthesis has the same anterior knee pain
and patellar tracking
Description:
Background:The anterior knee pain (AKP) is one of major problem of TKA. The incidence of
anterior knee after TKA was 4% to 49%. The cause of AKP after TKA from surgical technique
errors including joint line elevation, instability, malalignment of prosthesis, and
maltracking of patella. However, AKP still has presented even high volume surgeon that
prosthesis had good alignment and good stability, one of the risk factor is female. Due to
female has higher Q-angle, greater anteroposterior (AP)/mediolateral(ML) ratio, smaller
anterior condyle, and trochlea has higher degree of valgus angle than male. Therefore, female
should has AKP even surgery with good surgical technique. The gender specific knee prosthesis
was design for female to restore Q-angle, reduce anteroposterior (AP)/mediolateral(ML) ratio
for reducing overhang of femoral component, increase valgus angle of trochlea groove, and
reduce thickness of anterior part of prosthesis for prevention overstuff with patella. For
these reasons, the gender specific knee prosthesis should reduce AKP and improve patellar
tracking in female. And there is no study to compare AKP and patellar tracking between Unisex
knee prosthesis and gender specific knee prosthesis following minimally invasive surgery
(MIS) TKA.
Investigators asked whether AKP and patellar tracking differ between unisex knee prosthesis
and gender specific knee prosthesis following MIS TKA with patellar resurfacing.
Methods:The participants were randomized into 2 groups (Gp) with computer program to make a
list of random numbers of participant. Gp1 was gender specific knee prosthesis; consisted of
40 participants (40 knees) and Gp2 was unisex knee prosthesis; consisted of 40 participants
(40 knees). The sample size was calculate base on anterior knee pain after TKA with a risk
difference of 27% (3% versus 20%) (1,3). The 40 participants from each group would have 90%
power at the 5% significant level.
Patrticipants were follow up at 2 wks, 6 wks, 3 mo, 6mo, 1 year and 2 years. At each follow
up, the % anterior knee pain, VAS for anterior knee pain were record. The knee society score
also was recorded and compared between two group.
All participants were operated with same surgeon and same instrumentation.