DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20162794

A multicenter, prospective, randomized study protocol to demonstrate the superiority of a bone-anchored prosthesis for anular closure used in conjunction with limited discectomy to limited discectomy alone for primary lumbar disc herniation

Peter Douglas Klassen, Robert Hes, Gerrit Joan Bouma, Sandro Eustacchio, Martin Barth, Adisa Kursumovic, Senol Jadik, Volkmar Heidecke, Richard Bostelmann, Claudius Thomé, Peter Vajkoczy, Hans Peter Köhler, Javier Fandino, Richard Assaker, Erik Van de Kelft, Susanne Fröhlich, Wimar van den Brink, Jason Perrin, Jasper Wolfs, Mark Arts, Frederic Martens

Abstract


Background: Same-level reherniation and progressive degeneration with disc height loss are main causes of poor outcome after discectomy and may necessitate reoperation.  A novel prosthesis for anular closure was developed to address these causes.

Methods: The design of a multicenter, prospective, randomized, post-market superiority trial comparing limited lumbar discectomy augmented with this device (intervention group) with limited lumbar discectomy alone (control group) is presented.

Results: Patients with single-level (L1-S1) posterior or posterolateral disc herniation and radiologic confirmation of neural compression for whom at least six weeks of conservative treatment has failed are eligible.  Patients must have posterior disc height ≥5 mm at index level and baseline Oswestry and VAS leg pain scores of ≥40/100.  Intraoperatively, subjects meeting anular defect size criteria post-discectomy (4-6 mm tall and 6-10 mm wide) will be randomized to study groups in a 1:1 ratio using centralized, web-based software. A Bayesian statistical approach will be used to enroll 400 to 800 subjects who will be followed for at least 24 months.  Two co-primary endpoints will be assessed at 24 months: 1) a composite of leg pain, clinical function, disc height maintenance, and absence of reherniation, reoperation, and device failure; and 2) absence of reherniation based upon independent radiologic analysis.  

Conclusions: This type of analysis is becoming increasingly important as governments and health insurers continue to be pressured to spend limited healthcare funding wisely.

Keywords


Disc herniation, Reherniation, Anular closure, Discectomy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Garg B, Nagraja UB, Jayaswal A. Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study. J Orthop Surg. 2011;19:30-4.

Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse: updated Cochrane Review. Spine. 2007;32:1735-47.

Mariconda M, Galasso O, Secondulfo V, Rotonda GD, Milano C. Minimum 25-year outcome and functional assessment of lumbar discectomy. Spine. 2006;31:2593-9.

Nyström B. Experience of microsurgical compared with conventional technique in lumbar disc operations. Acta Neurol Scand. 1987;76:129-41.

Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Hirabayashi K. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine. 2001;26:652-7.

Carragee EJ, Han MY, Yang B, Kim DH, Kraemer H, Billys J. Activity restrictions after posterior lumbar discectomy. A prospective study of outcomes in 152 cases with no postoperative restrictions. Spine. 1999;24:2346-51.

Carragee EJ, Spinnickie AO, Alamin TF, Paragioudakis S. Carragee EJ, Spinnickie AO, et al. A prospective controlled study of limited versus subtotal posterior discectomy: short-term outcomes in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs and large posterior anular defect. Spine. 2006;31:653-7.

Caspar W, Campbell B, Barbier DD, Kretschmmer R, Gotfried Y. The Caspar microsurgical discectomy and comparison with a conventional standard lumbar disc procedure. Neurosurgery. 1991;28:78-87.

Barth M, Diepers M, Weiss C, Thomé C. Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 2: radiographic evaluation and correlation with clinical outcome. Spine. 2008;33:273-9.

Barth M, Weiss C, Thomé C. Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: part 1: evaluation of clinical outcome. Spine. 2008;33:265-72.

Fu TS, Lai PL, Tsai TT, Niu CC, Chen LH, Chen WJ. Long-term results of disc excision for recurrent lumbar disc herniation with or without posterolateral fusion. Spine. 2005;30:2830-4.

Loupasis GA, Stamos K, Katonis PG, Sapkas G, Korres DS, Hartofilakidis G. Seven- to 20-year outcome of lumbar discectomy. Spine. 1999;24:2313-7.

McGirt MJ, Eustacchio S, Varga P, Vilendecic M, Trummer M, Gorensek M, et al. A prospective cohort study of close interval computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging after primary lumbar discectomy: factors associated with recurrent disc herniation and disc height loss. Spine. 2009;34:2044-51.

Suk KS, Lee HM, Moon SH, Kim NH. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management. Spine. 2001;26:672-6.

Thomé C, Barth M, Scharf J, Schmiedek P. Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:271-8.

Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, Gokaslan ZL, et al. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery. 2009;65:574-8.

Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, Koes BW, Bartels RH, Peul WC. Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS) Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:149-58.

Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:102-8.

Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Feltes CH, Smisson HF 3rd, Johnston KW, Vogel RL, et al. Correlation of the amount of disc removed in a lumbar microdiscectomy with long-term outcome. Spine. 2004;29:2521-6.

Gaston P, Marshall RW. Survival analysis is a better estimate of recurrent disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:535-7.

McGirt MJ, Ambrossi GL, Datoo G, Sciubba DM, Witham TF, Wolinsky JP, et al. Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:338-45.

Rogers LA. Experience with limited versus extensive disc removal in patients undergoing microsurgical operations for ruptured lumbar discs. Neurosurgery. 1988;22:82-5.

Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Hanscom B, Tosteson AN, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006;296:2451-9.

Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray TM. Validation of the simple calculated osteoporosis risk estimation (SCORE) for patient selection for bone densitometry. Osteoporos Int. 1999;10:85-90.

Lydick E, Cook K, Turpin J, Melton M, Stine R, Byrnes C. Development and validation of a simple questionnaire to facilitate identification of women likely to have low bone density. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4:37-48.

Fairbank RCT, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25:2940-53.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-36® Health Survey. QualityMetric Incorporated; Lincoln, RI.: 2000.

Ware JE, Koskinski M, Keller SD. SF-36® Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, Massachusetts, The Health Institute; 1994

Spengler DM. Lumbar discectomy. Results with limited disc excision and selective foraminotomy. Spine. 1982;7:604-7.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for the EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-108.

Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, McDonnell J, Krabbe PF, van Busschbach JJ. Measuring the quality of life in economic evaluations: the Dutch EQ-5D tariff [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149:1574-8.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Economics. 2002;21:271-92.

Carreon LY, Glassman SD, McDonough CM, Rampersaud R, Berven S, Shainline M. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine. 2009;34:2085-9.

Fernstrom U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprosthesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1966;357:154-9.

Siemionow KB, Hu X, Lieberman IH. The Fernstrom ball revisited. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:443-8.

Yasargil MG. Microsurgical operation of herniated lumbar disc. Adv Neurosurg. 1977;4:81-2.

Bao QB, Yuan HA. Artificial disc technology. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;9:14.

Coric D, Mummaneni PV. Nucleus replacement technologies. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:115-20.

Husson JL, Korge A, Polard JL, Nydegger T, Kneubuhler S, Mayer HM. A memory coiling spiral as nucleus pulposus prosthesis: concept specifications, bench testing, and first clinical results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:405-11.

Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine. 2002;27:1374-7.

Trummer M, Eustacchio S. Design history of an anular reconstruction device: from failure to success. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:2051.

Watters WC 3rd, McGirt MJ. An evidence-based review of the literature on the consequences of conservative versus aggressive discectomy for the treatment of primary disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine. 2009;9:240-57.

Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66:150-4.

United States Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance Document for the Preparation of IDEs for Spinal Systems. Document issued on: January 13, 2000. Retrieved August 1, 2012 from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm073771.htm.

Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation: 10 year results from the Maine Lumber Spine Study. Spine. 2005;30:927-35.

Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65:71-6.

Grilo RM, Treves R, Preux PM, Vergne-Salle P, Bertin P. Clinically relevant VAS pain score change in patients with acute rheumatic conditions. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:358-61.