Multicenter study of lumbar discectomy with Barricaid annular closure device for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation in US patients: A historically controlled post-market study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients with large defects in the annulus fibrosus following lumbar discectomy have high rates of symptomatic reherniation. The Barricaid annular closure device provides durable occlusion of the annular defect and has been shown to significantly lower the risk of symptomatic reherniation in a large European randomized trial. However, the performance of the Barricaid device in a United States (US) population has not been previously reported. DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a historically controlled post-market multicenter study to determine the safety and efficacy of the Barricaid device when used in addition to primary lumbar discectomy in a US population. A total of 75 patients with large annular defects will receive the Barricaid device following lumbar discectomy at up to 25 sites in the US and will return for clinical and imaging follow-up at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. Trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board and imaging studies will be read by an independent imaging core laboratory. Patients treated with the Barricaid device in a previous European randomized trial with comparable eligibility criteria, surgical procedures, and outcome measures will serve as historical controls. Main outcomes will include back pain severity, leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index, health utility on the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire, complications, symptomatic reherniation, and reoperation. Propensity score adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting will be used to adjust for differences in baseline patient characteristics between the US trial participants and European historical controls. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by a central institutional review board. The study results of this trial will be widely disseminated at conference proceedings and published in peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of this study will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with lumbar discectomy in the US. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT03986580. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). RESULTS: For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure. CONCLUSION: ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Vertebral compression model and comparison of augmentation agents.

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the compression strengths of various bone fillers used in treating vertebral compression fractures using a third-generation sawbone model and to evaluate the viability of this novel model as an alternative to actual human or animal vertebrae for biomechanical testing of vertebral-filling materials. METHODS: Cavities were created in the osteoporotic vertebral body sawbone models and filled with PMMA, SRS, MIIGX3 HiVisc, and BoneSource fillers. These were cured according to manufacturers' recommendations and then tested to failure in the compression model. Elastic modulus was calculated and compared with the control group which was not augmented. RESULTS: The mean modulus of elasticity for the control group vertebrae was 92.44 ± 19.28 MPa. The mean modulus of elasticity was highest in the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) group (195.47 ± 2.33 MPa) and lowest in the MIIG group (25.79 ± 4.77 MPa). The results for the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (79.14 ± 20.20 MPa) were closest to the control group, followed by the BoneSource group (57.49 ± 8.35 MPa). Statistical analysis, for comparison of individual group means, identified significant differences between the control group and all other groups (P < .05), with the exception of the SRS-tricalcium phosphate group (P = .65, versus control). The modulus of elasticity for the PMMA group was significantly higher than all other groups (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The third-generation osteoporotic sawbones model simulates in vitro physiological specimen function. It was effective for comparing which osteoconductive agents may provide adequate strength while minimizing potential adjacent level fracture. Increased stiffness was seen with PMMA compared with the unaugmented control as well as with calcium phosphate or calcium sulfate cements suggesting that these may reduce adjacent segment fractures.

Dynamic anterior cervical plating for multi-level spondylosis: Does it help?

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare fusion rates, time to fusion, complication rates and subsidence between 1) a static, 2) a dynamic angulation, and 3) a dynamic translation plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for symptomatic degenerative cervical disease. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with two level, symptomatic cervical degenerative changes requiring surgery were randomized in a blinded fashion to receive a statically locked plate, Cervical Spine Locking Plate (CSLP) (Synthes, Paoli, PN, USA), an Atlantis Vision(®) Anterior Cervical Plate System (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) which allows angular dynamization, or a Premier(®) Anterior Cervical Plate System (Medtronic) which allows translational dynamization. Structured data collection and measurement protocols were used. Intervertebral composite allograft cages were used in all groups. Identical external immobilization and antiinflammatory medication protocols were followed. X-rays were obtained at preset time points postoperatively. Assessment of the primary outcomes was blinded. Rate of and time to fusion, graft/instrumentation complications, subsidence, and reoperation for adjacent level disease were measured. Paired t-test and three-way Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) were used to assess statistical differences between groups. RESULTS: The three groups were similar demographically. Fusion rates in the CSLP, Atlantis and Premier plate groups were 100%, 91%, and 92% respectively. Mean time to fusion was 6.1, 8.3 and 6.3 months respectively but differences were not statistically significant. Mean subsidence in the groups was 1.9, 1.6, and 2.6 mm respectively. Subsidence was found even for the static (CSLP) plate, but no statistically significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinical advantage of dynamic plates over static plates with regards to fusion rates, time to fusion, subsidence, complications, or adjacent-level surgery. Static plating allows for subsidence at similar levels to dynamic plating. [Table: see text] The definiton of the different classes of evidence is available on page 83.