Literature DB >> 26922669

Prospective, Randomized, Multi-centered Clinical Trial Assessing Safety and Efficacy of a Synthetic Cartilage Implant Versus First Metatarsophalangeal Arthrodesis in Advanced Hallux Rigidus.

Judith F Baumhauer1, Dishan Singh2, Mark Glazebrook3, Chris Blundell4, Gwyneth De Vries5, Ian L D Le6, Dominic Nielsen7, M Elizabeth Pedersen8, Anthony Sakellariou9, Matthew Solan10, Guy Wansbrough11, Alastair S E Younger12, Timothy Daniels13.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although a variety of great toe implants have been tried in an attempt to maintain toe motion, the majority have failed with loosening, malalignment/dislocation, implant fragmentation and bone loss. In these cases, salvage to arthrodesis is more complicated and results in shortening of the ray or requires structural bone graft to reestablish length. This prospective study compared the efficacy and safety of this small (8/10 mm) hydrogel implant to the gold standard of a great toe arthrodesis for advanced-stage hallux rigidus.
METHODS: In this prospective, randomized non-inferiority study, patients from 12 centers in Canada and the United Kingdom were randomized (2:1) to a synthetic cartilage implant or first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint arthrodesis. VAS pain scale, validated outcome measures (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure [FAAM] sport scale), great toe active dorsiflexion motion, secondary procedures, radiographic assessment, and safety parameters were evaluated. Analysis was performed using intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT (mITT) methodology. The primary endpoint for the study consisted of a single composite endpoint using the 3 primary study outcomes (pain, function, and safety). The individual subject's outcome was considered a success if all of the following criteria were met: (1) improvement (decrease) from baseline in VAS pain of ≥30% at 12 months; (2) maintenance of function from baseline in FAAM sports subscore at 12 months; and (3) absence of major safety events at 2 years. The proportion of successes in each group was determined and 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was calculated. Noninferiority of the implant to arthrodesis was considered statistically significant if the 1-sided 95% lower confidence interval was greater than the equivalence limit (<15%). A total of 236 patients were initially enrolled; 17 patients withdrew prior to randomization, 17 patients withdrew after randomization, and 22 were nonrandomized training patients, leaving 152 implant and 50 arthrodesis patients. Standard demographics and baseline outcomes were similar for both groups.
RESULTS: VAS pain scores decreased significantly in both the implant and arthrodesis groups from baseline at 12 and 24 months. Similarly, the FAAM sports and activity of daily living subscores improved significantly at 12 and 24 months in both groups. First MTP active dorsiflexion motion improvement was 6.2 degrees (27.3%) after implant placement and was maintained at 24 months. Subsequent secondary surgeries occurred in 17 (11.2%) implant patients (17 procedures) and 6 (12.0%) arthrodesis patients (7 procedures). Fourteen (9.2%) implants were removed and converted to arthrodesis, and 6 (12.0%) arthrodesis patients (7 procedures [14%]) had isolated screws or plate and screw removal. There were no cases of implant fragmentation, wear, or bone loss. When analyzing the ITT and mITT population for the primary composite outcome of VAS pain, function (FAAM sports), and safety, there was statistical equivalence between the implant and arthrodesis groups.
CONCLUSION: A prospective, randomized (2:1), controlled, noninferiority clinical trial was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of a small synthetic cartilage bone implant to first MTP arthrodesis in patients with advanced-stage hallux rigidus. This study showed equivalent pain relief and functional outcomes. The synthetic implant was an excellent alternative to arthrodesis in patients who wished to maintain first MTP motion. The percentage of secondary surgical procedures was similar between groups. Less than 10% of the implant group required revision to arthrodesis at 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective randomized study.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthritis; arthrodesis; clinical trial; forefoot disorders; hallux disorders; implant

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26922669     DOI: 10.1177/1071100716635560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   2.827


  20 in total

1.  Comparative study assessing sporting ability after Arthrodesis and Cartiva hemiarthroplasty for treatment of hallux rigidus.

Authors:  Bernardo Brandao; Ahmed Aljawadi; ZhiSheng Edmund Poh; Anna Fox; Anand Pillai
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-09-23

Review 2.  Surgical options for hallux rigidus: state of the art and review of the literature.

Authors:  Laurent Galois; Julien Hemmer; Victor Ray; François Sirveaux
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-08-07

3.  High complication rates following revision first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis of 79 cases.

Authors:  Dan Prat; Brandon A Haghverdian; Eric M Pridgen; Wonyong Lee; Keith L Wapner; Wen Chao; Daniel C Farber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 4.  Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society's Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 2: Treatment Options.

Authors:  Jason S Kim; Annunziato Amendola; Alexej Barg; Judith Baumhauer; James W Brodsky; Daniel M Cushman; Tyler A Gonzalez; Dennis Janisse; Michael J Jurynec; J Lawrence Marsh; Carolyn M Sofka; Thomas O Clanton; Donald D Anderson
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2022-10-14

Review 5.  A comprehensive and narrative review of historical aspects and management of low-grade hallux rigidus: conservative and surgical possibilities.

Authors:  S Caravelli; M Mosca; S Massimi; C Pungetti; A Russo; M Fuiano; G Catanese; S Zaffagnini
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2018-02-01

6.  Joint sparing management of hallux rigidus: Cartiva SCI vs cheilectomy a comparative review.

Authors:  Bernardo Brandao; Angus Hall; Ahmed Aljawadi; Anna Fox; Anand Pillai
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-07-27

Review 7.  Hallux rigidus.

Authors:  Bryant Ho; Judith Baumhauer
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13

8.  Management of first metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis by physical therapists and podiatrists in Australia and the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional survey of current clinical practice.

Authors:  Kade L Paterson; Rana S Hinman; Hylton B Menz; Kim L Bennell
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 9.  Foot osteoarthritis: latest evidence and developments.

Authors:  Edward Roddy; Hylton B Menz
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 5.346

Review 10.  Hallux rigidus: How do I approach it?

Authors:  Aaron Lam; Jimmy J Chan; Michele F Surace; Ettore Vulcano
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2017-05-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.