Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology
| Tracking Information | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Received Date ICMJE | November 25, 2011 | ||||||||
| Last Updated Date | August 23, 2012 | ||||||||
| Start Date ICMJE | June 2012 | ||||||||
| Estimated Primary Completion Date | December 2015 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||||||
| Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) [ Time Frame: surgery to one year postoperatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ] The CEA will examine the cost of health care resources and health outcomes from the surgical intervention to 1-year postoperatively. The costs will include all health care utilization during this time. Health care utilization, and associated costs, related to the patients' condition, the surgery and adverse events of the surgery will be the basis of a sensitivity analysis. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) is the preferred measure for CEA. QALYs will be calculated based on the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). An objective outcome measure may be used for additional analysis. |
||||||||
| Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||||||
| Change History | Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01483066 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site | ||||||||
| Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
|
||||||||
| Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||||||
| Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||||||
| Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||||||
| Descriptive Information | |||||||||
| Brief Title ICMJE | Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology | ||||||||
| Official Title ICMJE | A Prospective, Randomized, Post-market, Multi-center Study and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology A Prospective, Randomized, Post-market, Multi-center Study and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of ShapeMatch Technology | ||||||||
| Brief Summary | The currently held belief is that total knee replacement (TKR) requires the restoration of the overall limb alignment to coincide with the mechanical limb axis. To align the knee implants with this mechanical axis, rods are used to orient cutting guides with the mechanical axis as defined by the center of the femoral head and talus. Standard surgical technique typically involves femoral and tibial rods with cutting blocks to facilitate the intraoperative alignment of the initial femoral and tibia bone cuts. This approach is the method used for the traditional TriathlonÒ instrumentation. The Patient Specific Cutting Guides are designed to offer an alternative for alignment rods. ShapeMatch Technology places a plastic cutting guide on the end of the femur and tibia, so that cuts that do not automatically default to the mechanical axis, but rather attempt to recreate the patient's anatomic alignment. The surgeon can then assess implant placement and adjust as necessary during pre-operative planning. Thus, Patient Specific Cutting Guides give the surgeon better control over the placement of the implants. This study will be a prospective, randomized evaluation of ShapeMatch Technology for primary TKR in a consecutive series of patients who meet the eligibility criteria. The clinical study will be accompanied by a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of one-year outcomes. One half of the cases enrolled will receive the Triathlon® Cruciate Retaining Total Knee System (Triathlon® CR) in a procedure using patient-specific cutting guides designed to reproduce the natural kinematic alignment of the knee. The other half of the cases will receive the Triathlon® CR device in a procedure using traditional instrumentation, without navigation, designed to produce a neutral mechanical alignment. Subjects will be evaluated using validated measures within 3 months prior to surgery and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Primary Hypothesis: The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will be as cost-effective as usual care. Secondary Hypotheses: The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will result in improved clinical outcomes relative to usual care at three months postoperatively. The investigators expect that ShapeMatch Technology will result in similar clinical outcomes relative to usual care at two-years postoperatively. |
||||||||
| Detailed Description | Not Provided | ||||||||
| Study Type ICMJE | Interventional | ||||||||
| Study Phase | Phase 4 | ||||||||
| Study Design ICMJE | Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Single Blind (Outcomes Assessor) Primary Purpose: Health Services Research |
||||||||
| Condition ICMJE | Total Knee Arthroplasty | ||||||||
| Intervention ICMJE | Device: ShapeMatch Technology
ShapeMatch Technology places a plastic cutting guide on the end of the femur and tibia, so that cuts that do not automatically default to the mechanical axis, but rather attempt to recreate the patient's anatomic alignment. |
||||||||
| Study Arm (s) |
|
||||||||
| Publications * | Not Provided | ||||||||
|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline. |
|||||||||
| Recruitment Information | |||||||||
| Recruitment Status ICMJE | Recruiting | ||||||||
| Estimated Enrollment ICMJE | 150 | ||||||||
| Estimated Completion Date | December 2016 | ||||||||
| Estimated Primary Completion Date | December 2015 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||||||
| Eligibility Criteria ICMJE | Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
|
||||||||
| Gender | Both | ||||||||
| Ages | 18 Years to 80 Years | ||||||||
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers | No | ||||||||
| Contacts ICMJE |
|
||||||||
| Location Countries ICMJE | Canada | ||||||||
| Administrative Information | |||||||||
| NCT Number ICMJE | NCT01483066 | ||||||||
| Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE | Pro00024283 | ||||||||
| Has Data Monitoring Committee | No | ||||||||
| Responsible Party | Lauren Beaupre, University of Alberta | ||||||||
| Study Sponsor ICMJE | Lauren Beaupre | ||||||||
| Collaborators ICMJE | Stryker Canada LP | ||||||||
| Investigators ICMJE |
|
||||||||
| Information Provided By | University of Alberta | ||||||||
| Verification Date | August 2012 | ||||||||
|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP |
|||||||||