Closing wedge high tibial osteotomy for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis: staples and cast fixation versus TomoFix plate fixation - a randomised trial

ISRCTN ISRCTN32133423
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN32133423
Secondary identifying numbers 2; NTR483
Submission date
27/01/2006
Registration date
27/01/2006
Last edited
13/06/2014
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data
Record updated in last year

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr T M van Raaij
Scientific

Erasmus University Medical Centre
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
P.O. Box 2040
Rotterdam
3000 CB
Netherlands

Study information

Study designRandomised active controlled parallel group trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Participant information sheet Not available in web format, please use the contact details below to request a patient information sheet
Scientific title
Study acronymClosing HTO
Study objectivesClosing wedge osteotomy with plate fixation only will result in earlier mobilisation and better 1-year results considering pain and function then staple and cast fixation.
Ethics approval(s)Received from the local medical ethics committee
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedArthritis, osteoarthritis
InterventionClosing wedge high tibial osteotomy: staples and cast fixation versus TomoFix plate fixation.
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureIs the accuracy of achieved correction of the mechanical limb axis post-operatively compared to the pre-operatively planned correction superior for closing wedge HTO with plate fixation?

Measurement:
Conservation of corrected angular limb deformity 1 year after surgery (success rate [%]). (Surgery is successful when the femoral-tibial axis 1 year after osteotomy is corrected accurately two degrees or less compared to the preoperative planned mechanical axis correction.)
Secondary outcome measures1. Does the functional outcome differ between the two bone defect implants? Measurement:
1.1. Knee range of motion (ROM)
1.2. Pain score (Visual Analogue Scale)
1.3. Hospital for Special Surgery (HHS) Knee Service Rating System
1.4. Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
1.5. Health-related quality-of-life score (EuroQol)
1.6. Complication
2. Which surgical technique is most efficient? Measurement: cost efficiency
Overall study start date01/08/2004
Completion date31/12/2007

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
SexBoth
Target number of participants92
Key inclusion criteria1. Patients (male and female) with symptomatic medial osteoarthritis of the knee who are not indicated for a knee arthroplasty
2. Above 18 years of age
3. Patient is knowledgeable and able to understand the treatment consequences
4. Informed consent
Key exclusion criteria1. Mechanical axis not through the medial compartment (HipKneeAnkle angle greater than 180 degrees)
2. Rheumatoid arthritis
3. HipKneeAnkle angle less than 169 degrees
4. Range of motion (ROM) less than 100 degrees
5. Extension deficit 15 degrees
6. Collateral ligament insufficiency (instability grade 3)
7. Indication for a supracondylar femur osteotomy
8. Not able to speak or understand Dutch
Date of first enrolment01/08/2004
Date of final enrolment31/12/2007

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • Netherlands

Study participating centre

Erasmus University Medical Centre
Rotterdam
3000 CB
Netherlands

Sponsor information

Erasmus Medical Centre (The Netherlands)
Hospital/treatment centre

Dr. Molewaterplein 40/50
Rotterdam
3000 CA
Netherlands

Website http://www.erasmusmc.nl/content/englishindex.htm
ROR logo "ROR" https://ror.org/018906e22

Funders

Funder type

Not defined

Not provided at time of registration

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan