rhBMP-2 Versus Autograft in Critical Size Tibial Defects
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00853489|
Recruitment Status : Terminated (Enrollment too slow)
First Posted : March 2, 2009
Results First Posted : March 13, 2018
Last Update Posted : October 25, 2018
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Tibial Fractures||Device: recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2 Procedure: Autogenous iliac crest bone graft||Phase 4|
Open tibia fractures have a 15% or higher rate of not healing. Those fractures which do not heal are typically treated with bone from the hip (iliac crest autograft; or ICBG). The use of ICBG bone with the treatment of delayed unions/non-unions with critical defect, although successful, has its drawbacks. The bone graft sources are limited and the procedure is associated with additional operating room time plus a second incision with increased risk of infection, post operative pain and increased hospital stay. The purpose of this study is to determine if Rh-BMP2, a new bone graft substitute, is at least as effective as using bone from the hip (autograft) to help promote healing of open, tibia (shin bone) fractures.
What is the relative effect of rhBMP-2 versus autogenous ICBG on rates of union in patients with critical size defects following tibial shaft fractures?
Null hypothesis #1: rhBMP-2 has the same union rate when used in critical-sized defects as does ICBG.
What is the relative effect of rhBMP-2 versus autogenous ICBG on infection rates in patients with nonunion or critical size defects following tibial shaft fractures?
Null hypothesis #2: The infection rate in open tibias with critical-sized defects treated with rhBMP-2 and autogenous ICBG are the same.
What is the economic impact of the use of Rh-BMP 2 for tibial fractures with critical sized defects?
Null hypothesis #3: There will be no difference in the economic cost of the treatment of critical sized defects using the RhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||33 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||RhBMP-2 vs. Autograft for Critical Size Tibial Defects: A Multicenter Randomized Trial|
|Study Start Date :||August 2011|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||February 17, 2017|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||February 17, 2017|
Experimental: recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2
The patient will receive rhBMP-2 plus allograft chips in the bone defect site. Intervention type: surgical
Device: recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2
Patients will receive 1.50 mg/ml -12 mg of rhBMP-2 soaked on a absorbable collagen sponge (rhBMP-2/ACS) as an adjuvant to a freeze-dried cancellous allograft
Other Name: (rhBMP-2) (INFUSE)
Active Comparator: Autogenous iliac crest bone graft
Bone will be harvested from the iliac crest and placed in the bone defect.
Procedure: Autogenous iliac crest bone graft
Patients will undergo autogenous iliac crest bone graft surgery per the surgeon's usual practice.
- Fracture Healing (Union) at 12 Months [ Time Frame: 12 months post op ]
Union will be defined by:
1. Radiographic union as defined by the Radiographic union scale in tibia fractures (RUST) score, Radiographic evaluation will be assessed by blinded orthopaedic surgeons.
- Infection [ Time Frame: 12 months post op. ]Infection will be assessed based on the CDC criteria for deep and superficial infection.
- Medical Cost [ Time Frame: 12 mos post op ]An economic evaluation will also be performed including the costs of iliac crest bone graft harvest and complications from the bone graft surgery and the cost of the Rh-BMP 2 and the biologic implant used in the treatment group.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00853489
|United States, California|
|UCSF Medical Center|
|San Francisco, California, United States, 94115|
|United States, Colorado|
|Denver Health and Hospital Authority|
|Denver, Colorado, United States, 80204|
|United States, Florida|
|Florida Orthopaedic Institute / Tampa General & St. Joseph's Hospitals|
|Tampa, Florida, United States, 33606|
|United States, Iowa|
|University of Iowa Hospitals|
|Iowa City, Iowa, United States, 52242|
|United States, Massachusetts|
|Boston Medical Center|
|Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02118|
|United States, Minnesota|
|Hennepin County Medical Center|
|Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, 55715|
|United States, Missouri|
|St. Louis Medical Center|
|Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110|
|United States, North Carolina|
|Carolinas Medical Center|
|Charlotte, North Carolina, United States, 28232|
|United States, Ohio|
|MetroHealth Medical Center|
|Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44109|
|United States, Oklahoma|
|University of Oklahoma / OU Medical Center|
|Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, 73104|
|United States, Tennessee|
|Vanderbilt University Medical Center|
|Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37232|
|United States, Texas|
|Brooke Army Medical Center|
|Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States, 78234-6315|
|United States, Washington|
|University of Washington / Harborview Medical Center|
|Seattle, Washington, United States, 98104-2499|
|Principal Investigator:||Thomas Revak, DO||St. Louis Medical Center|
|Principal Investigator:||Paul Tornetta, MD||Boston Medical Center|