CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT01751503Updated Mar 10, 2021

Extramembranous and Interosseous Technique of Tibialis Posterior Tendon Transfer

An interventional study of Interosseous route of TPTT and Extra membranous route of TPTT in Muscle Injury, Nerve Injury and Poliomyelitis, sponsored by Iva Hauptmannova. Terminated at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 16 Years to 85 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-03-10.

Sponsored by Iva Hauptmannova · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
investigator no longer available on site
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
52
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
16 Years to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Foot drop deformity is a life limiting condition characterized by loss of ankle dorsiflexion and eversion. Main condition leading to drop foot condition include irrecoverable muscle and nerve injuries, poliomyelitis, drug poisoning, strokes, cerebral palsy, Charcot - Marie - Tooth disease, meningomyelocele, club foot, Friedreich's ataxia and Leprosy (1-4).

Anterior transposition of Posterior tibialis tendon (PTT) is the gold standard for surgical restoration of functional dorsiflexion of a permanently paralyzed foot (1, 4-10). Two methods of rerouting the posterior tibialis tendon have been reported, one through the interosseous membrane i.e. Interosseous route (7, 10) and second subcutaneously around the medial side of tibia i.e. Extramembranous or circumtibial route (11-13). Both these techniques have been widely described in literature (4-16) and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors.

There is a clinical equipoise with regards to these two techniques of Tibialis posterior tendon transfer and through our study we aim to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of these two techniques. There are no studies in literature which compare the clinical and functional outcomes with regards to both these methods. Although there are many studies to demonstrate the functional and clinical effectiveness of the respective procedures, there is a paucity of clinical trials comparing these two surgical techniques with regards to clinical and functional outcomes. Furthermore there are no head to head clinical trials to compare the outcomes with regards to these two methods of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer (Medline search dated 03/03/ 2012)

we propose to compare the clinical and functional outcomes with regards to the two techniques i.e extra membranous and Interosseous technique of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer performed in patients with foot drop as a result of nerve palsy.

Through our prospective randomized trial we aim to answer the research question, whether one method has any superior outcome over the other?

Read the detailed description

Foot drop deformity is a life limiting condition. This has far reaching consequences in patients of all age groups. Anterior transfer of tibialis posterior tendon is now regarded as the gold standard treatment as this allows walking without wearing an orthosis and thus substantial improvement in quality of life. This equally applies to developing and developed world.

The rationale for our study is that that there is a clinical equipoise with regards to these two techniques of Tibialis posterior tendon transfer and through our study we aim to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of these two techniques. Both these techniques have been widely described in literature (References attached) and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors.

There are no studies in literature which compare the clinical and functional outcomes with regards to both these methods. Although there are many studies to demonstrate the functional and clinical effectiveness of the respective procedures, there is a paucity of clinical trials comparing these two surgical techniques with regards to clinical and functional outcomes. Furthermore there are no head to head clinical trials to compare the outcomes with regards to these two methods of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer (Pub med search dated 12/03/2012)

This study is of great interest to health care professionals managing foot drop both in developing and developed world. The answer to our research question; whether one surgical technique has better clinical, functional and quality of life over the other, will greatly impact the future surgical management of foot drop.

02

Conditions studied

  • Muscle Injury
  • Nerve Injury
  • Poliomyelitis
  • Leprosy
  • Cerebral Palsy

Keywords

  • Foot drop deformity
  • gold standard treatment
  • Tibialis posterior tendon transfer
  • Interosseous route
  • Extramembranous or circumtibial route
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
16 Years to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Traumatic peroneal nerve injuries in age group 16 yrs to 80 yrs Upper-level nerve injuries after hip and lumbar surgery

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Sciatic nerve injuries with tibial component Previous fractures to Distal 1/3rd Tibia and fibula Previous history of Neuropathy Patients who are mentally challenged, vulnerable or non- English speakers will not be part of our study.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
52 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Interosseous route of TPTT

    The investigators will have two groups of patients, one who had their tendon transfer using the extra membranous route and other group which had their tendon transfer through the interosseous route. Patients will be randomized to either groups before the surgery and both the patients and the assessors will be blinded to the technique used. Both these techniques have been widely described in literature and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors.

    Procedure: Interosseous route of TPTT

  • Active comparator
    Extra membranous route of TPTT

    Extramembranous or circumtibial route of Tibialis Posterior tendon transfer.Both these techniques have been widely described in literature and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors

    Procedure: Extra membranous route of TPTT

Interventions

  • ProcedureInterosseous route of TPTT

    Anterior transposition of Posterior tibialis tendon (PTT) is the gold standard for surgical restoration of functional dorsiflexion of a permanently paralyzed foot. Two methods of rerouting the posterior tibialis tendon have been reported, one through the interosseous membrane i.e. Interosseous route and second subcutaneously around the medial side of tibia i.e. Extramembranous or circumtibial route. Both these techniques have been widely described in literature and are being extensively used in surgical management of foot drop. The selection of technique depends on surgeon choice and patient factors

  • ProcedureExtra membranous route of TPTT

    Rerouting the posterior tibialis tendon subcutaneously around the medial side of tibia i.e. Extramembranous or circumtibial route (

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in Functional and clinical outcome at 6 and 12 months in these two groups using the Stanmore score.

    The Stanmore score is unique, as being the only score to evaluate the results specific to tendon transfers for foot drop. Though this score is not validated but has been widely used as an outcome measure in various studies on tendon transfers. One of the secondary aims of the study will be to validate the Stanmore score.

    Time frame: 6 and 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Visual analogue scale foot and ankle (VAS FA) score

    To compare VASFA, EQ-5D in the two groups of patients at 3, 6 and 12 months. We will also record the dynamic and static foot pressure measurements in these two groups of patients at 3, 6 and 12 months

    Time frame: 3,6 and 12 months

  2. EQ-5D

    We will use EQ-5D as an index of quality of life and will compare it with normalized values for UK population

    Time frame: 3,6 and 12 Months

  3. Validate the Stanmore score.

    Validation of the Stanmore score. Data for the validation will be provided as part of another study, which aims to validate the score.

    Time frame: 6 and 12 Months

Other outcomes

  1. Dynamic and static foot pressure measurement

    dynamic and static foot pressure measurement will be analysed using Foot pressure scanner. This is a one test, which determines the foot movement.

    Time frame: 3,6 and 12 Months

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust
    London, Middlesex HA7 4LP, United Kingdom
07

References and documents

Related links

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01751503
Lead sponsor
Iva Hauptmannova
Responsible party
Iva Hauptmannova (Research & Development Manager, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Dec 18, 2012
Start date
Mar 2013
Primary completion
Dec 2019
Completion
Dec 2019
Last update
Mar 10, 2021

Study contacts

Michael Fox, FRCS (T&0)
study director · Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust
Jagwant Singh, MBBS, MRCS
principal investigator · Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Mar 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion