Spondylolisthesis Clinical Trial
Official title:
A Prospective, Single Center, Confirmatory Investigation to Evaluate the Performance and Safety of ReSpace TiCell Cage Implants in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
The primary objective of this study is to confirm superiority for the efficacy of the ReSpace Ticell Cage implants in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion compared to state-of-the-art. The secondary objective of the study is to evaluate further efficacy and safety of the ReSpace Ticell Cage implants in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with the following secondary efficacy and safety objectives: - To evaluate if implantation causes significant reduction in patient's back, hip/buttock, and leg pain. - To evaluate if implantation causes significant increase quality of life of the patients. - To evaluate if using the device can be considered as safe overall.
Status | Recruiting |
Enrollment | 99 |
Est. completion date | October 1, 2026 |
Est. primary completion date | February 1, 2026 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | No |
Gender | All |
Age group | 18 Years to 80 Years |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: Each subject must meet all the following criteria to be enrolled in this study: All subjects who had previously indicated for TLIF surgery can participate in this study, with the following evidence: 1. Has degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine in one or two adjacent levels (L1 to S1), manifested by: 1. Low back pain, or 2. Irradiating leg or buttock pain, paresthesia, numbness, or weakness, or 3. History of neurogenic claudication. 2. Has radiographic evidence (e.g. CT, MRI, x-ray, etc.) of degenerative lumbosacral disease including at least one of the following: 1. Instability as defined by =3 mm translation or =5-degree angulation 2. Decreased disc height, on average by =2 mm, but dependent upon the spinal level 3. Scarring/thickening of ligamentum flavum or annulus fibrosis 4. Herniated nucleus pulposus 5. Vacuum phenomenon 6. Grade 1 spondylolisthesis/retrolisthesis based on the Meyerding classification (Meyerding, Henry William, 1932), or lateral listhesis demonstrated by coronal plane translation (slippage) of the superior (cranial) vertebral body lateral to the inferior (caudal) vertebral body less than or equal to 3mm, or 7. Stenosis, or narrowing, of the lumbar spinal canal and/or intervertebral foramen requiring significant decompression leading to segmental instability, or 8. Recurrent disc herniation Further inclusion criteria: - Skeletally mature adults ages 18 - 80 years of age - Able to read and understand all documents used in this study, including the informed consent and patient-reported outcome questionnaires Exclusion Criteria: Subjects meeting any of the following criteria will be excluded from the study: 1. Prior surgical procedure at the involved or adjacent spinal levels (e.g. stabilization, fusion, arthroplasty and/or other non-fusion procedures). Prior microdiscectomy, discectomy, laminectomy, decompression surgery at the target or adjacent levels is allowed. 2. Significant lumbar instability defined as sagittal listhesis greater than Grade 2 at any involved level using the Meyerding Classification or lateral listhesis greater than 3 mm at any involved level. 3. Planned use of an internal or external bone growth stimulator. 4. Lumbar scoliosis >30 degrees. 5. Patients who had a previous diagnosis of osteoporosis with a Tscore of -2.5 or below in the last 12 months. If subject has a prevalent fragility fracture and a T-score hasn't been assessed in the last 12 months, a DEXA (dual x-ray absorptiometry) scan will need to be obtained. 6. Morbidly obese, as defined by a Body Mass Index (BMI) >40. 7. Presence of active malignancy or prior history of malignancy (noninvasive basal cell carcinoma of the skin and non-invasive squamous cell carcinoma localized only to the skin is allowed). 8. Overt or active bacterial infection, either local to surgical space or systemic. 9. Has undergone administration of any type of corticosteroid, antineoplastic, immunostimulant, or immunosuppressive agents, or medications known to inhibit with the healing of bone or soft tissue within 30 days prior to implantation of the assigned treatment 1. This includes patients = 65 years of age taking warfarin with documented diagnosed osteoporosis. All other patients taking warfarin should washout for at least 5 days prior to treatment 2. Use of steroidal inhalers, short-term NSAID use, and shortterm steroidal use (e.g. Medrol Dosepak) is allowed pre and postoperatively. For this clinical study, short-term use is defined as = two weeks. 3. Use of NSAIDs and/or steroids for longer than two weeks postoperatively through the 24 Month Follow-Up Visit is not recommended. Such patients must be excluded from data analysis in case of non-fusion. 10. Co-morbidities, which in the investigator's opinion, precludes the subject from being a surgical candidate. 11. Autoimmune disease, which in the investigator's opinion, is known to affect bone metabolism or the spine (e.g., spondyloarthropathies, juvenile arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Graves' disease, Hashimoto's thyroiditis). 12. Any endocrine or metabolic disorder, which in the investigator's opinion, is known to affect osteogenesis (e.g., Paget's disease, renal osteodystrophy, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or osteogenesis imperfecta). 13. Known hypersensitivity or allergy to any components of the study treatments including, but not limited to bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs); injectable collagen; protein pharmaceuticals (e.g.: monoclonal antibodies or gamma globulins); bovine collagen products; and/or instrumentation materials (e.g., titanium, titanium alloy, cobalt chrome, cobalt chrome alloy, or PEEK). 14. History of any allergy resulting in anaphylaxis. 15. Is mentally incompetent. If questionable, obtain psychiatric consult. 16. Treatment with an investigational therapy (drug, device, and/or biologic) targeting spinal conditions within 3 months prior to implantation surgery, treatment with any other investigational therapies within 30 days prior to implantation surgery, or such treatment is planned during the 24-month period following implantation of the study treatment. 17. Pregnancy and breastfeeding. 18. A documented diagnosis of substance use disorder (Nicotine use is allowed.) 19. Any condition, which in the investigator's opinion, would interfere with the subject's ability to comply with study instructions, which might confound data interpretation. 20. Subject is considered to belong to a vulnerable population. |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Hungary | National Center for Spinal Disorders | Budapest | Pest |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Sanatmetal Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Equipment Manufacturer Ltd. |
Hungary,
Ajiboye RM, Alas H, Mosich GM, Sharma A, Pourtaheri S. Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Clin Spine Surg. 2018 May;31(4):E230-E238. doi — View Citation
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, McGirt MJ, Asher AL. Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Jun;24(6):9 — View Citation
Crandall DG, Revella J. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis: three year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976 — View Citation
Dorward IG, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, O'Leary PT, Stoker GE, Pahys JM, Kang MM, Sides BA, Koester LA. Transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion in long deformity constructs: a matched cohort analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 May 20;38(12):E7 — View Citation
Faundez AA, Schwender JD, Safriel Y, Gilbert TJ, Mehbod AA, Denis F, Transfeldt EE, Wroblewski JM. Clinical and radiological outcome of anterior-posterior fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospect — View Citation
Fujimori T, Le H, Schairer WW, Berven SH, Qamirani E, Hu SS. Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Have Advantages over Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis? Global Spine J. 2015 Apr;5(2):102-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396432 — View Citation
Ghasemi AA. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion In degenerative spondylolisthesis: An attempt to evaluate the superiority of one method over the other. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016 Nov;150:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cl — View Citation
Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L. Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord. 2001 Dec;14(6):533-40. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200112000-0001 — View Citation
Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, Jung B, Choi YG, Jeon SH, Lee HY. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic s — View Citation
Kim JS, Lee KY, Lee SH, Lee HY. Which lumbar interbody fusion technique is better in terms of level for the treatment of unstable isthmic spondylolisthesis? J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Feb;12(2):171-7. doi: 10.3171/2009.9.SPINE09272. — View Citation
Levin JM, Tanenbaum JE, Steinmetz MP, Mroz TE, Overley SC. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2018 Jun;18(6):1088-1098. doi: 10.1016/j.spi — View Citation
Makanji H, Schoenfeld AJ, Bhalla A, Bono CM. Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1868-1876. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-554 — View Citation
Owens RK 2nd, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Relative benefit of TLIF versus PSF stratified by diagnostic indication. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 May;27(3):144-7. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182867470. — View Citation
Pooswamy S, Muralidharagopalan NR, Subbaiah S. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in Grade I/II spondylolisthesis. Indian J Orthop. 2017 Mar-Apr;51(2):131-138. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.201703. — View Citation
* Note: There are 14 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | AE and ADE | To prove the safe and effective use of the medical device. Number of patients with Adverse Events (AE) and Adverse Device Effects (ADE) are administered and observed during the study. | During the study (32 months) | |
Other | Complications | To prove the safe and effective use of the medical device. The rate of complications is administered and observed during the study. | During the study (32 months) | |
Other | Surgical revisions | To prove the safe and effective use of the medical device. The rate of surgical revisions is administered and observed during the study. | During the study (32 months) | |
Primary | CT imaging_1 - cumulative fusion rate | For the determination of the cumulative fusion rate, radiographic evaluation (CT imaging with fine-cut axial and multiplanar reconstruction views) will be conducted by 2 independent examiners. | At visit 4 (Month 24) | |
Primary | CT imaging_2 - fusion status | Standing flexion-extension angle will be measured with dynamic plain radiography to evaluate mobility to determine the fusion status. | At visit 4 (Month 24) | |
Secondary | Visual Analog Scale | The severity of back, hip/buttock, and leg pain will each be evaluated in all study subjects using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Minimum value is 0mm, maximum value is 100mm. The low value means low intensity of the pain, which is the aim of the treatment. | At visits 1/2/3/4 (Months 3/6/12 and 24) | |
Secondary | Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) | Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a validated, independent outcome measure. It is one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders and in patients with low back pain. The questionnaire contains 10 questions. There are 6 possible answers available to each questions. The 1. answer means each time the lowest pain, which is the aim of the treatment. At the end the doctor calculate a rate of the patient pain in %. | At visits 1/2/3/4 (Months 3/6/12 and 24) |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Recruiting |
NCT03883022 -
Vancomycin Powder Combined With Autogenous Bone Graft as a Prevention for Post-operative Infection for Spine Surgery
|
N/A | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT04542577 -
PMCF Study on the Safety and Performance of PROSPACE 3D / PROSPACE 3D OBLIQUE / TSPACE 3D
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT04477447 -
PMCF Study on the Safety and Performance of CESPACE 3D
|
||
Completed |
NCT02558621 -
New Robotic Assistance System for Spinal Fusion Surgery
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT01461005 -
A Postmarket Surveillance Study of the Paradigm Spine Dynamic Stabilization System (DSS)
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00405691 -
Safety and Effectiveness Study of the TOPS System, a Total Posterior Arthroplasty Implant Designed to Alleviate Pain Resulting From Moderate to Severe Lumbar Stenosis
|
Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT00205101 -
Clinical Outcome Study of the Triad Allograft for Posterior Lumbar Fusion
|
||
Enrolling by invitation |
NCT04204135 -
The Course of Hip Flexion Weakness Following LLIF or ALIF
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05238740 -
Comparison of Standalone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) L5/S1 Performed With Either rhBMP-2 or ViviGen®
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT02931279 -
PASS OCT® Post-market Clinical Follow-up
|
||
Not yet recruiting |
NCT02805985 -
Post-market Surveillance Study of FLXfit™ TLIF Interbody Fusion Device
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT02966639 -
Validation of Appropriateness Criteria for the Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
|
||
Active, not recruiting |
NCT02057744 -
MIS ReFRESH: Robotic vs. Freehand Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgeries
|
||
Completed |
NCT01711203 -
The Addition of a Pilates Program for Short-Term Improvements in Patients With Spondylolysis or Spondylolisthesis
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00549913 -
Study of 3 Doses of NeoFuse Combined With MasterGraft Granules in Subjects Requiring Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion (PLF)
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Terminated |
NCT00254852 -
Evaluation of Radiographic and Patient Outcomes Following Lumbar Spine Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix (DBM) Mixed With Autograft
|
N/A | |
Terminated |
NCT00095095 -
Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Telamon® Peek™ Versus the Telamon® Hydrosorb™ Fusion Device
|
Phase 4 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT03956537 -
PMCF Neo Pedicle Screw and Cage Systems
|
||
Recruiting |
NCT05182489 -
Adaptix RCT Evaluating Adaptix™ Versus PEEK Cages
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT02884440 -
Transverse Abdominis Plane Block for Anterior Approach Spine Surgery
|
Phase 2 |