Three-year results from a randomized trial of lumbar discectomy with annulus fibrosus occlusion in patients at high risk for reherniation

Jenny C Kienzler, Peter Douglas Klassen, Larry E Miller, Richard Assaker, Volkmar Heidecke, Susanne Fröhlich, Claudius Thomé, Annular Closure RCT Study Group, Jenny C Kienzler, Peter Douglas Klassen, Larry E Miller, Richard Assaker, Volkmar Heidecke, Susanne Fröhlich, Claudius Thomé, Annular Closure RCT Study Group

Abstract

Background: A larger defect in the annulus fibrosus following lumbar discectomy is a well-known risk factor for reherniation. Procedures intended to prevent reherniation by sealing or occluding the annular defect warrant study in high-risk patients. This study sought to determine 3-year results of lumbar discectomy with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) or lumbar discectomy only (controls) in patients at high risk for reherniation.

Methods: This multicenter randomized trial enrolled patients with sciatica due to lumbar intervertebral disc herniation who failed conservative treatment. Patients with large annular defects after lumbar limited microdiscectomy were intraoperatively randomly assigned to receive ACD or control. Clinical and imaging follow-up was performed at routine intervals over 3 years. Main outcomes included rate of reherniations, reoperations, and endplate changes; leg and back pain scores on a visual analogue scale; Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-36; and adverse events adjudicated by a data safety monitoring board.

Results: Among 554 randomized patients, the modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 272 patients in which ACD implantation was attempted and 278 receiving control; device implantation was not attempted in 4 patients assigned to ACD. Outcomes at 3 years favored ACD for symptomatic reherniation (14.8% vs. 29.5%; P < 0.001), reoperation (11.0% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.007), leg pain (21 vs. 30; P < 0.01), back pain (23 vs. 30; P = 0.01), ODI (18 vs. 23; P = 0.02), PCS (47 vs. 44; P < 0.01), and MCS (52 vs. 49; P < 0.01). The frequency of all-cause serious adverse events was comparable between groups (42.3% vs. 44.5%; P = 0.61).

Conclusions: The addition of a bone-anchored ACD in patients with large annular defects following lumbar discectomy reduces the risk of reherniation and reoperation, and has a similar safety profile over 3-year follow-up compared with lumbar limited discectomy only.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01283438.

Keywords: Annular closure device; Annulus fibrosus; Disc herniation; Lumbar discectomy; Randomized controlled trial; Sciatica.

Conflict of interest statement

P. Klassen, L. Miller, R. Assaker, and C. Thomé disclose consultancy with Intrinsic Therapeutics. J. C. Kienzler, V. Heidecke, and S. Fröhlich have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Enrollment and randomization of patients. Among 554 randomized patients, 276 were allocated to annular closure device (ACD) and 278 to control. Owing to 4 patients in whom ACD implant was not attempted, the modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 272 patients with attempted ACD implant and 278 patients assigned to control. Compliance with clinical follow-up at 3 years was 76% with ACD and 75% with controls
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cumulative rate of symptomatic index level reherniation through 3 years. Cumulative event rates were 14.8% for annular closure device (ACD) and 29.5% for control (log-rank P < 0.001)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cumulative rate of index level reoperation through 3 years. Cumulative event rates were 11.0% for annular closure device (ACD) and 19.3% for control (log-rank P < 0.001)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MID) in patient-reported outcomes through 3 years. MID defined as improvement from baseline of at least 20 points for leg pain, 20 points for back pain, 15 points for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 5.7 points for Physical Component Score (PCS), and 6.3 points for Mental Component Score (MCS), respectively (all reported on 0–100 scale). Statistical significance between treatment groups denoted as *P < 0.05 or †P < 0.01. ACD, annular closure device

References

    1. Ahlgren BD, Lui W, Herkowitz HN, Panjabi MM, Guiboux JP. Effect of anular repair on the healing strength of the intervertebral disc: a sheep model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2165–2170. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200009010-00004.
    1. Bailey A, Araghi A, Blumenthal S, Huffmon GV, Anular Repair Clinical Study G Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of anular repair in lumbar discectomy: two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1161–1169. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828b2e2f.
    1. Barth M, Fontana J, Thome C, Bouma GJ, Schmieder K. Occurrence of discal and non-discal changes after sequestrectomy alone versus sequestrectomy and implantation of an anulus closure device. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;34:288–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.013.
    1. Bouma GJ, Barth M, Ledic D, Vilendecic M. The high-risk discectomy patient: prevention of reherniation in patients with large anular defects using an anular closure device. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1030–1036. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2656-1.
    1. Bron JL, van der Veen AJ, Helder MN, van Royen BJ, Smit TH, Skeletal Tissue Engineering Group A, Research Institute M Biomechanical and in vivo evaluation of experimental closure devices of the annulus fibrosus designed for a goat nucleus replacement model. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1347–1355. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1384-z.
    1. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940–2952. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017.
    1. Heuer F, Ulrich S, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Biomechanical evaluation of conventional anulus fibrosus closure methods required for nucleus replacement. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:307–313. doi: 10.3171/SPI/2008/9/9/307.
    1. Kim KT, Lee DH, Cho DC, Sung JK, Kim YB. Preoperative risk factors for recurrent lumbar disk herniation in L5-S1. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E571–E577. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000041.
    1. Klassen PD, Hes R, Bouma GJ, Eustacchio S, Barth M, Kursumovic A, Jadik S, Heidecke V, Bostelmann R, Thomé C, Vajkoczy P, Köhler HP, Fandino J, Assaker R, van de Kelft E, Fröhlich S, van den Brink W, Perrin J, Wolfs J, Arts M, Martens F. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study protocol to demonstrate the superiority of a bone-anchored prosthesis for anular closure used in conjunction with limited discectomy to limited discectomy alone for primary lumbar disc herniation. Int Clin Trials. 2016;3:120–131. doi: 10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20162794.
    1. Kursumovic A, Kienzler JC, Bouma GJ, Bostelmann R, Heggeness M, Thome C, Miller LE, Barth M, RCTsg AC (2018) Morphology and clinical relevance of vertebral endplate changes following limited lumbar discectomy with or without bone-anchored annular closure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002632
    1. Kursumovic A, Rath S. Performance of an annular closure device in a ‘real-world’, heterogeneous, at-risk, lumbar discectomy population. Cureus. 2017;9:e1824.
    1. Ledic D, Vukas D, Grahovac G, Barth M, Bouma GJ, Vilendecic M. Effect of anular closure on disk height maintenance and reoperated recurrent herniation following lumbar diskectomy: two-year data. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2015;76:211–218. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393930.
    1. Miller LE, McGirt MJ, Garfin SR, Bono CM. Association of annular defect width after lumbar discectomy with risk of symptom recurrence and reoperation: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:E308–E315. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002501.
    1. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19:593–607. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003.
    1. Parker SL, Grahovac G, Vukas D, Vilendecic M, Ledic D, McGirt MJ, Carragee EJ. Effect of an annular closure device (Barricaid) on same-level recurrent disk herniation and disk height loss after primary lumbar discectomy: two-year results of a multicenter prospective cohort study. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29:454–460. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182956ec5.
    1. Ran J, Hu Y, Zheng Z, Zhu T, Zheng H, Jing Y, Xu K. Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121816. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121816.
    1. Thome C, Klassen PD, Bouma GJ, Kursumovic A, Fandino J, Barth M, Arts M, van den Brink W, Bostelmann R, Hegewald A, Heidecke V, Vajkoczy P, Frohlich S, Wolfs J, Assaker R, Van de Kelft E, Kohler HP, Jadik S, Eustacchio S, Hes R, Martens F, Annular Closure RCTSG (2018) Annular closure in lumbar microdiskectomy for prevention of reherniation: a randomized clinical trial. Spine J. 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.003
    1. Ware JE., Jr SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa