View clinical trials related to Spinal Diseases.
Filter by:The aim of our study is to determine the superior procedure in analgesia management by comparing the traditional wound infiltration technique with the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spina plan block technique in spinal surgery patients.
- Evaluation of outcome of DCI in treatment of cervical disc disease to patients admitted to neurosurgery department, Asyut University Hospitals. - Give the effective treatment, pain control and can detect the best method could be used. - Improve the outcome of these patients and decease rate of recurrence and complications.
To date, no consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective to treat cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multilevel symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). It remains unknown to what extent kinematics, surgery-induced fusion and natural history of disease play a role in its development. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. ACDA is often discouraged as the implant costs are higher whilst the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF. However, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long-term. In this randomized controlled trial patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months till 4 years postoperatively. High quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking, to date no prospective trials from a societal perspective exist. Considering the ageing of the population and the rising healthcare costs, the need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question is high.
Since the first successful spinal fusion surgery using a modern stabilization technique in 1909, surgical fusion has become one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. The incidence of lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative conditions has more than doubled from 2000 until 2009. Despite the high incidence of fusion surgery, the decision making in lumbar fusion surgery is complicated by a wide variety of indications (the greatest measured in any surgical procedure). This could indicate there might be an overuse of lumbar fusion. However, decompression alone, or non-operative care for degenerative conditions may risk progressive spinal instability, intractable pain, and neurological impairment. These complications in the absence of fusion surgery, clearly demonstrate the beneficial effects of adding spinal fusion surgery. Because of its beneficial effect and high usage, it is of greatest importance to reduce postoperative disability and pain, by diminishing surgical invasiveness. Traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are used to treat degenerative diseases of the spinal column. These techniques require an extensive dissection of the paraspinal musculature, which in term can lead to muscle denervation, loss of function, muscular atrophy, and spinal instability. It has also been known that paraspinal muscle damage induced during surgery is related to long term disability and pain. With this knowledge, minimally invasive spine surgery began to develop in the mid-twentieth century. Since then, new direct approaches to the lumbar spine, known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), have been introduced. This study will focus on XLIF. Ozgur. 2006 first reported the XLIF procedure, as a minimally invasive procedure that approaches the spine from the lateral via the space between the 12th rib and the highest point of the iliac crest. This approach allows direct access to the intervertebral disc space without disruption of the peritoneal structures or posterior paraspinal musculature. Ohba. 2017 compared XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws to traditional PLIF, and found that PLIF was associated with less intraoperative blood loss, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and creatine kinases (CK) levels, indicating less muscle damage. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly faster in the XLIF group. 1-year disability and pain scores were also significantly lower in the XLIF group. Despite these significant better results reported in the XLIF group, the systematic review of Barbagallo. 2015 concluded that there is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) versus PLIF/ TLIF surgery. This indicates that the evidence for choosing between XLIF or a traditional approach is still scarce, and no recommendations can be made. This study will focus on comparing XLIF to PLIF. The objective of this study is to compare clinical and structural outcome measures between the XLIF and PLIF groups, to confirm our hypothesis that the minimally invasiveness of the XLIF technique facilitates a significant faster post-operative recovery, and improves functional and structural outcomes.
Monocentric, comparative, randomized, controlled interventionnal study in 2 parallel groups, aiming to compare the efficacy of the ATLAS device with that of a standard lumbar belt on the reduction of pain felt in patients with subacute or chronic low back pain with lumbar disc disease.
The research project is testing whether in screw insertion of spine surgery using "Anatase" Spine Surgery Navigation System is at least as safe and accurate as using O-arm assisted spine surgery- Medtronic Stealthstation S7 Treatment Guidance System.
The proposed investigation is a multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the BAGUERA®C to the control, a similar, legally marketed total disc replacement device in subjects with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) at two contiguous levels. Subjects will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the two-level BAGUERA®C Cervical Disc Prosthesis (investigational group) or to the two-level Mobi-C® Cervical Disc (control group). Subjects enrolled in the study will be evaluated pre-operatively, at the time of surgery, discharge, and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and then annually until 7 years post-surgery.
Rationale: Cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD) is a common cause of cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy. Surgical treatment is indicated when conservative therapies do not provide sufficient relief or when neurological complaints are progressive. The main surgical techniques are anterior cervical discectomy with (ACDF) or without fusion (ACD), whereas both techniques result in high fusion rates. Short term outcomes of surgery show good clinical results. Long term follow-up shows a drop-in satisfaction rates, often due to the occurrence of new complaints. Pathology is often located at levels adjacent to the previously operated segment, known as adjacent segment disease (ASDis). This is thought to be the results of loss of motion at the previously operated and fused segment. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is developed in an effort to reduce the incidence of ASDis by preserving physiological motion in the operated segment. Objective: To investigate physiological motion of the cervical spine the investigators will analyze motion patterns at the long-term in patients who underwent surgical treatment for CDDD, either ACD or ACDA. Study design: Fundamental research. This is a prospective study that includes a cohort of patients previously operated in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. Study population: Adult patients with an indication of surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy as a consequence of CDDD were enrolled in an RCT between 2007 and 2014 and assigned to undergo ACD or ACDA. Flexion and extension cinematographic recordings of the cervical spine were performed, with the last one at one-year follow-up. The majority of patients in the ACDA group (80%) showed a normal sequence of segmental contribution, which was not the case in the ACD group. This cohort will now be asked to participate in the long-term follow-up study assessing the motion patterns 6-13 years after ACD or ACDA surgery. Intervention: One flexion and extension cinematographic recording of the cervical spine and will be made. Main study parameters/endpoints: The sequence of segmental contributions in sagittal rotation during flexion and extension of the cervical spine will be assessed in the long-term follow-up of surgical treatment. Secondary outcomes will be to assess the amount of degeneration based on the Kellgren Score (KS) and the segmental range of motion (sROM). Long term clinical outcomes will be assessed according to VAS, NDI, SF-36 and Odom's criteria. Patients will be asked whether they have new neurological symptoms and whether they have had a re-operation. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Participants receive cinematographic recordings once. The amount of radiation is a negligible risk. There will be no health benefits. There will be no follow-up.
The intention of the study is to investigate whether Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) will improve postural deformities of patients with Parkinson's disease.
The proposed investigation is a multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the BAGUERA®C to the control, a similar, legally marketed total disc replacement device in subjects with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD). Subjects will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the one-level BAGUERA®C Cervical Disc Prosthesis (investigational group) or to the one-level Mobi-C® Cervical Disc (control group). Subjects enrolled in the study will be evaluated pre-operatively, at the time of surgery, discharge, and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and then annually until 7 years post-surgery.