View clinical trials related to Spondylolisthesis.
Filter by:nanOss Bioactive is approved for use in the U.S. The purpose of this study is to compare fusion results in the posterolateral spine using nanOss Bioactive mixed with autograft bone and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) on one side and autograft alone on the opposite side of the treated level(s). It is hypothesized that the use of nanOss Bioactive will result in fusion at 12 months, with CT evidence of bridging trabecular bone, less than 3mm of translational motion, and less than 5 degrees of angular motion.
The registry has been designed as a prospective, observational program for patients undergoing lumbar or cervical fusion using VariLift device with the ultimate goal to aid in the development of strategic treatment pathways and improved patient care. All patients who agree to participate in the registry will sign an informed consent form and subsequently be treated by their surgeon with the VariLift device. Potential treatment procedures include bilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), or bilateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the lumbar spine, or cervical unilateral or bilateral ACDF procedure. Surgical procedures can be performed in either an inpatient or outpatient facility. It is anticipated that the VariLift devices will improve patient outcomes and lead to the development of treatment pathways to improve patient care.
This Single-Arm Post-Marketing Evaluation will gauge the improvement in function and pain for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis patients with the TOPS System.
Degenerative spondylolisthesis describes the slip of one spinal segment relative to the adjacent segment. It is usually associated with spinal stenosis (which limits one's ability to walk and stand) and is the most common indication for surgery in adults over age 65 years. A variety of surgical techniques are available; the most common are the Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion (PLF), and Interbody Fusion (IF) including Posterolateral Interbody Fusion (PLIF), and Transforaminal Interbody fusion (TLIF). IF uses a cage that is placed within the cleaned out disc space between the vertebral bodies being fused. Although this approach achieves a good fusion rate and deformity correction it is associated with a higher surgical cost and potential intra-operative complication rate. What is more, no consensus exists as to whether IF provides better patient rated functional outcome and quality of life. If the advantages of IF do not translate into superior patient rated outcomes, then the risk-benefit ratio would be tipped in favor of PLF. The purpose of this study is to determine if IF is equivalent to PLF for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. The investigators will conduct a prospective randomized control trial comparing these two procedures. Our primary outcome measure will be the Oswestry Disability Index, which evaluates spinal pain and function.
Lumbar spinal fusion was introduced approximately 70 years ago and has evolved as a treatment option for symptomatic spinal instability, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative scoliosis. Many techniques evolved since then, from wiring, rods, pedicle screws, and recently inter-spinous fixation devices like the Aspen. Along its evolutionary trail, various methods for achieving circumferential fusion have arisen. Distinct from staged anterior/posterior fusion techniques, two methods of achieving an interbody fusion from a posterior approach have emerged: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Recently, the lateral approach for interbody fusion (XLIF) has became a more common technique, requiring in some cases, complemental posterior fixation with pedicle screws, facet screws or interspinous fixation devices like the Aspen device. In this study, we address the clinical and radiological outcome of a novel technique using standard PLIF interbody fusion and insertion of the Aspen device via posterior lumbar approach.
Most patients undergoing surgery experience significant post-operative pain. Inadequate peri-operative pain management may decrease post-operative mobilization and increase length of hospitalization. Additionally, poorly managed acute post-operative pain analgesia is associated with an increased risk of developing chronic pain and delayed wound healing. Lumbar spine surgery is particularly painful, often requiring a multi-day hospitalization. The most common post-operative analgesia used in spine surgery is narcotic medication delivered via an intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IV PCA). A multimodal peri-operative pain management protocol for spine surgery has the potential to not only decrease pain but also to improve recovery, decrease narcotic consumption, decrease length of stay in the hospital and reduce both direct and indirect hospital costs. The purpose of this study is to determine if post-operative pain and rate of recovery are improved in patients undergoing spine surgery using MMA compared to usual analgesic care.
This study is designed as a randomized, parallel-group, therapy-controlled trial in a clinical care setting at a university hospital. Patients presenting to our outpatient clinic with degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis will be assessed against study inclusion and exclusion criteria. After informed consent and randomization of patients, surgery will be performed. Follow-up examinations will take place immediately after treatment during hospital stay, and then after another 6 and 24 weeks, for a total study duration of 6 months. Data will be assessed after 12, 24 and 36 months for a supplemental investigation. A further assessment will be performed every year, owing to the possibility that a statement regarding ASD cannot be given after 36 months. Experimental research in this trial will be performed with the approval of the ethics committee of the medical faculty of the University of Cologne and of the university of Halle.
Spine fusion is one of the most common procedures performed in spinal surgery. Several surgical techniques can achieve a solid union, but the intertransverse posterolateral fusion (PLF) is the most widely used. However, complications can develop when the bone graft material used is insufficient to achieve the desired fusion. With its unique properties, nanOss Bioactive 3D can be mixed with bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and autograft bone to obtain new bone growth during the healing process. nanOss Bioactive 3D is approved for use in the U.S., however, additional information is useful to assess its efficacy in the posterolateral spine. The purpose of this study is to assess fusion results in the posterolateral spine using nanOss Bioactive 3D mixed with autograft bone and BMA. It is hypothesized that the use of nanOss Bioactive 3D will result in fusion at 12 months, with CT evidence of bridging trabecular bone, less than 3mm of translational motion, and less than 5 degrees of angular motion.
This is a post-marketing, on-label Efficacy, Effectiveness and Safety Study designed in a Multicenter, Randomized, Prospective format. This study compares two spinal fusion procedures, Transacral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF). Enrollment period will be approximately 12-18 months; each Principal Investigator/Study Center will be expected to enroll up to 20 subjects. The protocol requires approximately 7 subject visits to the study center from screening through the final follow-up visit.
Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of an augmented Pilates program, when combined to a multimodal strengthening program, for patients under the age of 21, who have spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis. Significance of the topic: Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are often diagnosed in children and adolescents presenting with low back pain. A randomized, clinical trial, test-retest design, with a 3 week and 6 week assessment with functional performance test measures, exercise logs, adherence scale for patient and parent perception, and outcome measures (Global rating of change (GROC) and Modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)). This study will attempt to obtain at least 120 subjects that will be randomized into two groups: bracing and a general strengthening program vs. bracing and a Pilates/motor learning program combined with a general strengthening program. This study will begin with an initial examination and continue with treatment sessions 2x/week for 6 weeks. A follow up phone call will be conducted at 3 months after completing the 6-week protocol. The follow up phone call will be an oral conducted GROC and ODI outcome measures.