PTED study: design of a non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) versus open microdiscectomy for patients with a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation

Ankie Seiger, Pravesh S Gadjradj, Biswadjiet S Harhangi, Job Lc van Susante, Wilco C Peul, Maurits W van Tulder, Michiel R de Boer, Sidney M Rubinstein, Ankie Seiger, Pravesh S Gadjradj, Biswadjiet S Harhangi, Job Lc van Susante, Wilco C Peul, Maurits W van Tulder, Michiel R de Boer, Sidney M Rubinstein

Abstract

Introduction: Lumbosacral radicular syndrome is often caused by a disc herniation. The standard surgical technique to remove a disc herniation is open microdiscectomy. An alternative technique is percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED), which is less invasive. In the Netherlands, PTED is not currently considered as standard care, and therefore not reimbursed within public health insurance. A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial has been designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PTED versus open microdiscectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Method and analysis: In total, 682 patients between 18 and 70 years of age with >10 weeks of radiating pain or with >6 weeks of excessive radiating pain are to be recruited from participating centres. Patients must have an indication for surgery based on an MRI demonstrating compression of the nerve root from a lumbar disc herniation. Patients are to be randomised to PTED or open microdiscectomy. The primary outcome is self-reported leg pain measured by the 0-100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Secondary outcomes include self-reported health and functional status, back pain, self-perceived recovery and a physical examination. Outcomes will be measured the day following surgery, at 2, 4 and 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 months. Physical examination will be performed at 6 weeks, and 3 and 12 months. An economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective and cost questionnaires will be used (eg, EQ-5D-5L). The data will be analysed longitudinally; the non-inferiority margin for the primary outcome is 5. Bootstrapping techniques will be used for the economic evaluation.

Ethics and dissemination: This study has received approval of the Medical Ethical Committee of the VU Medical Centre Amsterdam: NL50951.029.14. The results will be published in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Trial registration number: NCT02602093; Pre-results, recruiting stage.

Keywords: health economics; neurosurgery.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

References

    1. Heliövaara M, Impivaara O, Sievers K, et al. . Lumbar disc syndrome in Finland. J Epidemiol Community Health 1987;41:251–8. 10.1136/jech.41.3.251
    1. Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine 2008;33:2464–72. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318183a4a2
    1. Nielen MMJ. Incidentie en prevalentie van gezondheidsproblemen in de Nederlandse huisartsenpraktijk in 2014. NIVEL Zorgregistraties eerste lijn 2015:ICPC L86 (accessed Jun 2017).
    1. Spijker-Huiges A, Groenhof F, Winters JC, et al. . Radiating low back pain in general practice: incidence, prevalence, diagnosis, and long-term clinical course of illness. Scand J Prim Health Care 2015;33:27–32. 10.3109/02813432.2015.1006462
    1. Oosterhuis T, Smaardijk V, Kuijer P, et al. . Actualisatie wetenschappelijke kennis en inzichten over het lumbosacraal radiculair syndroom. Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemenrsverzekeringen UWV 2016:16–26 (accesed Jun 2017).
    1. Schaafstra A, Spinnewijn WEM, Bons S, et al. . NHG-standaard lumbosacraal radiculair syndroom (tweede herziening). Huisarts & Wetenschap 2015;58:308–20.
    1. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Peul WC. Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica. BMJ 2007;334:1313–7. 10.1136/
    1. Kristman VL, Hartvigsen J, Leboeuf-Yde C, et al. . Does radiating spinal pain determine future work disability? A retrospective cohort study of 22,952 Danish twins. Spine 2012;37:1003–13. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823a426f
    1. Konstantinou K, Hider SL, Jordan JL, et al. . The impact of low back-related leg pain on outcomes as compared with low back pain alone: a systematic review of the literature. Clin J Pain 2013;29:644–54. 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31826f9a52
    1. Gadjradj PS, van Tulder MW, Dirven CM, et al. . Clinical outcomes after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective case series. Neurosurg Focus 2016;40:E3 10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15484
    1. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Rubinstein SM, et al. . Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2014;23:1021–43. 10.1007/s00586-013-3161-2
    1. Gu YT, Cui Z, Shao HW, et al. . Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a surgical technique, outcome, and complications in 209 consecutive cases. J Orthop Surg Res 2017;12:25 10.1186/s13018-017-0524-0
    1. Gibson JNA, Subramanian AS, Scott CEH. A randomised controlled trial of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs microdiscectomy. Eur Spine J 2017;26:847–56. 10.1007/s00586-016-4885-6
    1. Pan Z, Ha Y, Yi S, et al. . Efficacy of transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technique in treating lumbar disc herniation. Med Sci Monit 2016;22:530–9. 10.12659/MSM.894870
    1. Hermantin FU, Peters T, Quartararo L, et al. . A prospective, randomized study comparing the results of open discectomy with those of video-assisted arthroscopic microdiscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:958–65. 10.2106/00004623-199907000-00008
    1. Mayer HM, Brock M. Percutaneous endoscopic discectomy: surgical technique and preliminary results compared to microsurgical discectomy. J Neurosurg 1993;78:216–25. 10.3171/jns.1993.78.2.0216
    1. Krappel FA, Schmitz R, Bauer E, et al. . Open or endoscopic nucleotomy? Results of a prospective, controlled clinial trial with independent follow-up, MRI and special reference to cost-effectiveness. Orthopadische Prax 2001;37:164–9.
    1. Scott CEH, Gibson JNA. A cost utility comparison of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and microdiscectomy. The Spine Journal 2016;16:S47 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.01.031
    1. NVN and CBO. Richtlijn lumbosacraal radiculair syndroom. Nederlandse: Vereniging voor Neurologie en Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO, 2008. (accesed Jun 2017).
    1. Gadjradj PS, Harhangi BS. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disk herniation. Clin Spine Surg 2016;29:368–71. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000366
    1. Hiemstra E, Jansen FW. Richtlijn OSATS. Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs 2010;29:135–9. 10.1007/s12507-010-0131-0
    1. Terluin B, van Marwijk HW, Adèr HJ, et al. . The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry 2006;6:34 10.1186/1471-244X-6-34
    1. DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, et al. . Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine 2011;36:69–74. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef6de
    1. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. . The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271–3.
    1. van Hooff ML, Spruit M, Fairbank JC, et al. . The Oswestry Disability Index (version 2.1a): validation of a Dutch language version. Spine 2015;40:E83–90. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000683
    1. Smeets R, Köke A, Lin C-W, et al. . Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res 2011;63:158–173. 10.1002/acr.20542
    1. Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, et al. . Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine 2011;36:54–68. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef74d
    1. Lind MY, Hop WC, Weimar W, et al. . Body image after laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2004;18:1276–9. 10.1007/s00464-003-9113-x
    1. Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, et al. . Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1334–40. 10.1007/s004649900851
    1. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, et al. . Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:149–58. 10.1001/jama.2009.972
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
    1. Versteegh MM, M Vermeulen K, M A A Evers S, et al. . Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 2016;19:343–52. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
    1. Hakkaart-Van Roijen L, van der Linden N, Bouwmans C, et al. . Kostenhandleiding: methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg (Manual for economic evaluations. Methods and standard cost prices for economic evaluations in health care. 2016 Diemen, The Netherlands: Health Care Institute; .
    1. Z-Index G-Standaard. The Hague, The Netherlands: Z-Index BV, 2009. (accessed Jan 2017).
    1. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. 10.1002/sim.4067
    1. Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, et al. . Methods for covariate adjustment in cost-effectiveness analysis that use cluster randomised trials. Health Econ 2012;21:1101–18. 10.1002/hec.2812
    1. Drummond M, Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed Oxford; New York: Oxford medical publicationsOxford University Press, 2005:379.
    1. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990;10:212–4. 10.1177/0272989X9001000308
    1. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves--facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405–15. 10.1002/hec.903
    1. Peul WC, van Houwelingen HC, van den Hout WB, et al. . Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2245–56. 10.1056/NEJMoa064039
    1. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, et al. . Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:17–24. 10.1093/bja/aen103
    1. van den Akker ME, Arts MP, van den Hout WB, et al. . Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk-related sciatica: cost utility analysis alongside a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2011;69:829–36. discussion 835-6 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31822578f6

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren