MIS ReFRESH: Robotic vs. Freehand Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgeries
Multi-center, Partially Randomized, Controlled Trial of MIS Robotic vs. Freehand in Short Adult Degenerative Spinal Fusion Surgeries
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Florida
-
Celebration, Florida, United States, 34747
- Florida Hospital Celebration Health
-
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
- Baptist Health
-
Miami, Florida, United States, 33136
- University of Miami
-
Orlando, Florida, United States, 32801
- Central Florida Neurosurgery Institute
-
Sarasota, Florida, United States, 34232
- Southeastern Spine Center & Research Institute
-
-
Pennsylvania
-
Abington, Pennsylvania, United States, 19001
- The Rothman Institute
-
-
Tennessee
-
Memphis, Tennessee, United States, 38116
- Tabor Orthopedics
-
-
Virginia
-
Fairfax, Virginia, United States, 22031
- Atlantic Brain & Spine
-
Reston, Virginia, United States, 20191
- Virginia Spine Institute
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Sampling Method
Study Population
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Adult patients (age over 21 years), undergoing short (4 or less consecutive vertebrae) lumbar or lumbosacral percutaneous/MIS spinal fixation surgery.
- May include surgeries involving iliac screws, although these screws will not be included in the data analysis.
- Primary fusion surgery
- Patient capable of complying with study requirements
- Signed informed consent by patient
Exclusion Criteria:
- Pregnancy
- Revision surgery (prior laminectomy or discectomy is not excluded).
- Infection or malignancy
- Primary abnormalities of bones (e.g. osteogenesis imperfecta)
- Primary muscle diseases, such as muscular dystrophy
- Neurologic diseases (e.g. Charcot-Marie Tooth, Guillain-Barre syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida or neurofibroma)
- Spinal cord abnormalities with any neurologic symptoms or signs
- Spinal cord lesions requiring neurosurgical interventions, such as hydromyelia
- Paraplegia
- Patients who have participated in a research study involving an investigational product in the 12 weeks prior to surgery
- Patients requiring anterior release or instrumentation
- Any other significant disease or disorder which, in the opinion of the Investigator, may either put the participants at risk because of participation in the study, or may influence the result of the study.
- Patient cannot follow study protocol, for any reason
- Patient cannot or will not sign informed consent
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
Number of groups / cohorts
Cohorts and Interventions
Group / CohortGroup / Cohort |
|---|
|
Robotic-guided
Adult patients (21 years or older) undergoing short (4 or less consecutive vertebrae) thoracic, lumbar or lumbosacral percutaneous/minimally invasive robotic-guided spinal fixation surgery.
|
|
Freehand image-guided
Adult patients (21 years or older) undergoing short (4 or less consecutive vertebrae) thoracic, lumbar or lumbosacral percutaneous/minimally invasive image-guided freehand or navigated spinal fixation surgery.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Intra-operative exposure to x-ray radiation
Time Frame: Day of surgery
|
Reading of exposure in seconds (and KvP if available) from C-arm or other imaging system used in the operating room.
|
Day of surgery
|
|
Surgical complications
Time Frame: Within first year from day of surgery
|
New neural deficits, implant-related durotomy, infection requiring return to surgery, hardware failure requiring removal, vertebral body fracture, failure to fuse
|
Within first year from day of surgery
|
|
Revision surgeries
Time Frame: 1 year
|
All cause revisions
|
1 year
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Pedicle screw instrumentation accuracy
Time Frame: Within 1 year of surgery, if indicated by surgeon and clinically necessary
|
Accuracy will be quantified in millimeters and scored using the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, based on postoperative CTs that are clinically necessary for the management of the patient.
|
Within 1 year of surgery, if indicated by surgeon and clinically necessary
|
|
Incidence of pseudoarthrosis (malunion)
Time Frame: Within 1 year from surgery
|
Failure of the operated spinal segment to fuse.
|
Within 1 year from surgery
|
|
Length of convalescence
Time Frame: Within 1 year of surgery
|
Length of stay at the hospital, destination at discharge, time to return to normal activities, time to return to work
|
Within 1 year of surgery
|
|
Times of intra-operative stages
Time Frame: Day of surgery
|
instrumentation time per screw, total surgery time
|
Day of surgery
|
|
Ratio of executed vs. planned screws
Time Frame: Day of surgery
|
number of screws planned to be robotically inserted and manually inserted instead and cause.
|
Day of surgery
|
|
Quality of life assessment
Time Frame: Each visit up to 1 year1
|
Health related quality of life questionnaires, including: back and leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality % Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L)
|
Each visit up to 1 year1
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Director: Doron Dinstein, MD, Mazor Robotics, Ltd
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Hardenbrook M, Kiriyanthan G, Barzilay Y, Bruskin A, Sackerer D, Alexandrovsky V, Stuer C, Burger R, Maeurer J, Donald GD, Schoenmayr R, Friedlander A, Knoller N, Schmieder K, Pechlivanis I, Kim IS, Meyer B, Shoham M. Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Nov 15;35(24):2109-15. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323ab. Erratum In: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jan 1;36(1):91. Gordon, Donald G [corrected to Donald, Gordon D].
- Kantelhardt SR, Martinez R, Baerwinkel S, Burger R, Giese A, Rohde V. Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J. 2011 Jun;20(6):860-8. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2. Epub 2011 Mar 8.
- Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH. Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J. 2013 Mar;22(3):661-6. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2499-1. Epub 2012 Sep 14.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- CLN110
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.