To assess the need for additional fusion surgery versus the risk of a revision surgery in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal disease and to assess efficacy and risk of the ligamentous fixation technique (vertebropexy)
The global share of people over the age of 65 years has been consistently on the rise over the past few decades, and is still projected to increase. The increasing life expectancy, overall advances in medical care and therefore, the higher average age of people seeking surgical treatment lead to increasing numbers of spine surgeries: Spinal fusion is one of the most frequently used surgical treatment modalities for spinal disorders with 7.6 million per year worldwide (EU: 700,000, USA: 450,000, CH: 9000) and provides stability by internal rigid fixation of the spine with screws, rods and bony fusion. Although producing reliable short-term results with rapid pain relief and positive effects on patient outcome, implant-related complications, painful pseudarthrosis (non-union of bone), screw loosening, and adjacent segment disease lead to one-third of patients requiring reoperation within 15 years. These complications might be evoked by altered biomechanics with redistribution of loads and subsequently increased stress at the bone-implant interface as well as long fusions leading to relevant, irreversible loss of motion. Therefore, a new treatment modality which reinforces bony spinal segments with ligaments, the so called "vertebropexy", was recently developed by Farshad et al. The goal is to achieve targeted stabilization of the spine by inserting ligamentous allografts to counteract instability, without immobilizing the segment. Furthermore, it might provide additional stabilization after decompression surgery and therefore reduce revision surgery rates due to instability in clinically relevant directions as flexion-extension or anterior shear stress. However, to become a broadly accepted surgical alternative to existing surgical techniques for degenerative lumbar spinal disease like dorsal fusion and spinal decompression surgery, the new technique must provide convincing long-term results superior to those of these established procedures which is the primary objective of this randomized controlled trial.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
164
microsurgical (i.e., the use of a microscope or magnifying glasses during decompression) lumbar laminotomy with partial removal of the medial facet joint by preserving the midline structures (supraspinous-interspinous ligament complex); approach: bilateral or ipsilateral with cross-over to the contralateral side. Additional stabilization of the spine with a ligament (for instance semitendinosus donor allograft), which connect the postoprior structures (Proc. Spinosus and/or Lamina) of the vertebrae . Situation-related application of laminar bands or analogous suture material (for instance FiberTape, Arthrex, Naples or Nile Band, K2M, Virginia)
Balgrist University Hospital
Zurich, Switzerland
RECRUITINGODI (Oswestry Disability Index)
To assess and compare the clinical outcome of patients with spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis +/- degenerative listhesis with either vertebropexy, decompression or fusion surgery
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
VAS (Visual Analogue Scale)
To assess and compare the clinical outcome of patients with spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis +/- degenerative listhesis with either vertebropexy, decompression or fusion surgery. VAS scale 0-10, 10 meaning the highest pain score and 0 no pain at all.
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
SSM symptoms/function (Spinal Stenosis Measure)
To assess and compare the clinical outcome of patients with spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis +/- degenerative listhesis with either vertebropexy, decompression or fusion surgery
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
SSM satisfaction (Spinal Stenosis Measure)
To assess and compare the clinical outcome of patients with spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis +/- degenerative listhesis with either vertebropexy, decompression or fusion surgery
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
EQ-5D (European Quality of Life Five Dimension)
To assess and compare the clinical outcome of patients with spinal canal stenosis or foraminal stenosis +/- degenerative listhesis with either vertebropexy, decompression or fusion surgery
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
Revision surgery
surgery on same and/or on adjacent levels
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Complications
* \- intraoperative: lesion of nerve root, dural tear, lesion of vessels * \- postoperative: surgical site infection, wound healing disorder, hematoma, paresis, material loosening (with fusion), material failure (with fusion), pseudarthrosis (with fusion), fracture, allograft tendon rupture (with vertebropexy) * \- non-surgical: anesthesiological, cardiovascular, pulmonal, thromboembolic, death
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
Duration of surgery
Duration of intervention in minutes
Time frame: Perioperative
Length of hospital stay
Duration of hospital stay in days
Time frame: Perioperative
Intraoperative blood loss
Blood loss intraoperative in ml
Time frame: Perioperative
Use of analgesia
Intake of analgetics
Time frame: 2 years postoperative
Use of physical therapy
Necessity to undergo further physical therapy (for instance due to remaining pain or function deficit)
Time frame: 2 years postoperative