Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06507046

The personalKNEE Trial

Robotic knee surgery makes it possible to adopt different alignment philosophies in total knee arthroplasty. The classical operation where the knee is placed in a neutral manner, the so called mechanical alignment, has been used for decades. The kinematical alignment has recently won popularity. With this technique the focus is to render the natural knee anatomy even if this means to end up with a varus or valgus position. In this study, the investigators will compare the mechanical alignment and kinematical alignment and test the patients clinically and with a special CT scan to see if this technique gives equal or better longevity of the implants.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Kristiansund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust

Kristiansund, Møre and Romsdal, 6508, Norway

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Frank-David Øhrn, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

71120000 ext. 0047

Myrthle Slettvåg Hoel, Nurse

CONTACT

[email protected]

71120000 ext. 0047

About this study

Mechanical alignment (MA) has for many years been the most used surgical alignment technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This means that regardless of constitutional native anatomy (i.e. valgus or varus), one strives to achieve a neutral coronal knee axis on postoperative x-rays (Hip-Knee-Ankle angle, HKA). To achieve MA, the cuts are made perpendicular to the mechanical axis, and subsequent soft tissue balancing is performed if necessary. However, many patients do not have a neutral knee alignment before they develop osteoarthritis. Several authors therefore advocate the personalized alignment (kinematic, KA or functional alignment, FA), where the aim is to restore the patient's original pre-arthritis anatomy and joint line. This means that tibial component placement in varus or valgus is accepted, despite the possible result of a postoperative non-neutral HKA axis. Studies indicate that good clinical results can be achieved in terms of range of motion (ROM) and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) with these techniques, but it has not been tested properly in terms of activity measurements, strength testing or migration of implants. There is diversity in the literature regarding whether tibial component with too much deviation from a neutral axis can lead to increased migration and eventually aseptic solution. To date, only a few trials, with diverging results, have assessed migration of the implants implanted with KA or FA. The methods are so far perceived as controversial, despite the widespread use.

KA or FA can be performed by manual conventional surgery; however, the newly introduced robotic assisted surgery probably yields higher accuracy and precision of the cuts during surgery. This makes robotic assisted surgery well suited for personalized surgery. Yet, it is claimed that because of diversity of the different features for planning and executing the surgery, each system should be evaluated separately, and not as a group. The investigators therefore planned this study to assess the efficacy of robotic assisted surgery comparing MA and personalized alignment (PA) techniques.

Aims of the trial

  • Evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who have had TKA with PA and compare it with conventional MA.
  • Analyse and compare the in vivo stability over time of TKA operated with PA vs. MA using CT- based radiostereometric analysis (CT-RSA).
  • Evaluate the postoperative position of the implants using two different alignment philosophies.

Objective Perform TKAs on patients using ROSA® Knee System (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana USA) robotic assisted surgery and randomize the patients to either PA or MA.

Materials and methods

A multiple blinded randomized controlled parallel superiority trial will be performed, where the patients, study nurse, statistician and physiotherapists are blinded to the surgical method (PA or MA). The study will include 152 patients. The study adheres to the consort statement.

Surgery All surgeons involved in the trial are experienced knee surgeons. The surgeons have received thorough tutoring in the use of the ROSA Knee System and the Persona TKA, and both alignment techniques have now been adopted in our standard treatment of end stage OA. The learning curve of robotic assisted surgery is probably very small, and more related to time spent on the procedure rather than placement of the implants. The placement of the tibial implant will be restricted in the coronal plane to maximum 5 degrees of varus and 2 degrees of valgus. In sagittal plane, the slope will be limited to between 0-10 degrees.

The Persona TKA implant although contemporary, is a well-documented implant with very low migration.

The MA and PA techniques are well known and already used in a widespread fashion all around the world. Several clinics in Norway have also adopted the methods.

Implantation of tantalum markers in bone and polyethylene has been performed for more than 40 years in numerous studies without any known complications.

Known but rare complications to robotic surgery are fractures at the site of insertion of the bone pins, and pin site infections. In elderly or osteoporotic patients, the surgeons will consider using unicortical engagement of the pins. Concerning infections, all the default precautions in the OR will be taken, such as preoperative and postoperative administration of antibiotics, strict sterile procedures etc.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • femoro-tibial or patello-femoral osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence, K-L) grade 2-4 with persistent pain, referred to Kristiansund Hospital for primary TKA

Exclusion criteria

  • serious psychiatric disorders
  • dementia
  • drug abuse
  • patients not able to speak and read Norwegian language making them noncompliant or unable to perform an informed consent
  • Patients with ongoing cancer therapy
  • Patients with ASA (The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class risk stratification system) classification >3
  • Patients in the need of walking aid devices
  • Patients in need of primary revision arthroplasty or more than 15 degrees of varus or 5 degrees of valgus on preoperative HKA images.

Treatment and study plan

Total Knee Replacement

Procedure

Mechanical or Personalized alignment

Primary outcomes

  1. MTPM

    Time frame: 2 years

    Maximum Total Point Motion measured by CT -based RSA in millimeters.

Secondary outcomes

  1. XYZ translation

    Time frame: 2 years

    Translation of implant measured by CT -based RSA in millimeters

  2. XYZ rotation

    Time frame: 2 years

    Rotation of implant measured by CT -based RSA in degrees

  3. Steps per day

    Time frame: 1 year and 2 years

    ActivePAL accelerator registration of mean steps per day measured 24/7 for a week

  4. Walking speed

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    ActivePAL accelerator registration of mean meter per second measured 24/7 for a week

  5. Stair climbing

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Standardized climbing and descending of stairs up and down. Time in seconds measured up, down and total.

  6. Maximal voluntary contraction flexion

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Isometric contraction at 90 degrees knee flexion measured in Newtons with Tindeq force cell

  7. Maximal voluntary contraction extension

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Isometric contraction at 90 degrees knee extension measured in Newtons with Tindeq force cell

  8. Maximal voluntary contraction

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Isometric contraction at 90 degrees knee flexion measured in Newtons with Tindeq force cell

  9. Sit to stand test

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Maximum number of repetitive transitions from sitting on a chair to standing without the use of hands during 30 seconds

  10. KOOS score

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis of 5 dimensions measuring activity of daily living (ADL), Quality of life, Sport and recreation, pain and symptoms. From 0 (bad) to 100 (excellent)

  11. FJS

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    Forgotten Joint Score is a 12 item scale assessing the ability to forget the operated joint as artificial during activities of daily living. Ranges from 0 (bad) to 100 (excellent)

  12. Eq-5D

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    EuroQol 5 Dimensions is a generic patient reported outcome measure measuring quality of life. The scale ranges from 100 ('the best imaginable health state') to 0 ('the worst imaginable health state' ).

  13. VAS

    Time frame: 1 and 2 years

    The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) measures pain intensity. The VAS consists of a 10cm line, with two end points representing 0 ('no pain') and 10 ('pain as bad as it could possibly be')

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Frank-David Øhrn, MD, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

91824169

Myrhle Hoel, Nurse

CONTACT

[email protected]

71120000

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Helse Møre og Romsdal HF

Other Gov

Collaborators

  • National Taiwan Normal University
  • Oslo University Hospital
  • Sectra AB
  • University of Oslo

Registry information

Official study title

Robotic Assisted Surgery Comparing Personalized Alignment Versus Mechanical Alignment of Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Randomized Controlled Trial

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2035
First posted
Jul 18, 2024
Registry last updated
Jul 21, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.