Multicenter study of lumbar discectomy with Barricaid annular closure device for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation in US patients: A historically controlled post-market study protocol

K Brandon Strenge, Christian P DiPaola, Larry E Miller, Clint P Hill, Robert G Whitmore, K Brandon Strenge, Christian P DiPaola, Larry E Miller, Clint P Hill, Robert G Whitmore

Abstract

Background: Patients with large defects in the annulus fibrosus following lumbar discectomy have high rates of symptomatic reherniation. The Barricaid annular closure device provides durable occlusion of the annular defect and has been shown to significantly lower the risk of symptomatic reherniation in a large European randomized trial. However, the performance of the Barricaid device in a United States (US) population has not been previously reported.

Design and methods: This is a historically controlled post-market multicenter study to determine the safety and efficacy of the Barricaid device when used in addition to primary lumbar discectomy in a US population. A total of 75 patients with large annular defects will receive the Barricaid device following lumbar discectomy at up to 25 sites in the US and will return for clinical and imaging follow-up at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. Trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board and imaging studies will be read by an independent imaging core laboratory. Patients treated with the Barricaid device in a previous European randomized trial with comparable eligibility criteria, surgical procedures, and outcome measures will serve as historical controls. Main outcomes will include back pain severity, leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index, health utility on the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire, complications, symptomatic reherniation, and reoperation. Propensity score adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting will be used to adjust for differences in baseline patient characteristics between the US trial participants and European historical controls.

Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by a central institutional review board. The study results of this trial will be widely disseminated at conference proceedings and published in peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of this study will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with lumbar discectomy in the US.

Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03986580" title="See in ClinicalTrials.gov">NCT03986580.

Level of evidence: 3.

Conflict of interest statement

KBS discloses no conflicts of interest. CDP reports consulting income from Intrinsic Therapeutics and Lineage Medical, royalties and consulting fees from Stryker, and stock options from Nascent Surgical. LM reports personal fees from Intrinsic Therapeutics. CH discloses no conflicts of interest. RGW reports consulting fees from Intrinsic Therapeutics and DePuy Synthes Spine.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Barricaid annular closure device. The device is comprised of a flexible polymer occlusion component that is attached to a titanium bone anchor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Algorithm to determine occurrence of symptomatic reherniation. AE = adverse event, HNP = herniated nucleus pulposus, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, ODI = Oswestry Disability Index, VAS = visual analogue scale.

References

    1. Kreiner DS, Hwang SW, Easa JE, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J 2014;14:180–91.
    1. Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med 1988;318:291–300.
    1. Vroomen PC, de Krom MC, Knottnerus JA. Predicting the outcome of sciatica at short-term follow-up. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52:119–23.
    1. Vroomen PC, de Krom MC, Wilmink JT, et al. Lack of effectiveness of bed rest for sciatica. N Engl J Med 1999;340:418–23.
    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.
    1. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, et al. United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992-2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2707–14.
    1. Carragee EJ, Spinnickie AO, Alamin TF, et al. A prospective controlled study of limited versus subtotal posterior discectomy: short-term outcomes in patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs and large posterior anular defect. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:653–7.
    1. Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, et al. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. Neurosurgery 2009;65:574–8. discussion 578.
    1. McGirt MJ, Eustacchio S, Varga P, et al. A prospective cohort study of close interval computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging after primary lumbar discectomy: factors associated with recurrent disc herniation and disc height loss. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2044–51.
    1. Arts MP, Brand R, van den Akker ME, et al. Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2011;69:135–44. discussion 144.
    1. Ran J, Hu Y, Zheng Z, et al. Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One 2015;10:e0121816.
    1. Miller LE, McGirt MJ, Garfin SR, et al. 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:E308–15.
    1. Heuer F, Ulrich S, Claes L, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of conventional anulus fibrosus closure methods required for nucleus replacement. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:307–13.
    1. Thome C, Klassen PD, Bouma GJ, et al. Annular closure in lumbar microdiscectomy for prevention of reherniation: a randomized clinical trial. Spine J 2018;18:2278–87.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586.
    1. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940–52. discussion 2952.
    1. Spengler DM. Lumbar discectomy. Results with limited disc excision and selective foraminotomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982;7:604–7.
    1. Bostelmann R, Steiger HJ, Cornelius JF. Effect of annular defects on intradiscal pressures in the lumbar spine: an in vitro biomechanical study of diskectomy and annular repair. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2017;78:46–52.
    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.
    1. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Stat Med 2010;29:2137–48.
    1. Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:387–98.
    1. Ethier DB, Cain JE, Yaszemski MJ, et al. The influence of anulotomy selection on disc competence. A radiographic, biomechanical, and histologic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:2071–6.
    1. Hampton D, Laros G, McCarron R, et al. Healing potential of the anulus fibrosus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:398–401.
    1. Osti OL, Vernon-Roberts B, Fraser RD. 1990 Volvo Award in experimental studies. Anulus tears and intervertebral disc degeneration. An experimental study using an animal model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990;15:762–7.
    1. Bron JL, Helder MN, Meisel HJ, et al. Repair, regenerative and supportive therapies of the annulus fibrosus: achievements and challenges. Eur Spine J 2009;18:301–13.
    1. Kienzler JC, Klassen PD, Miller LE, et al. Three-year results from a randomized trial of lumbar discectomy with annulus fibrosus occlusion in patients at high risk for reherniation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019;161:1389–96.
    1. Gray DT, Deyo RA, Kreuter W, et al. Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1957–63. discussion 1964.
    1. Parker SL, Grahovac G, Vukas D, et al. Cost savings associated with prevention of recurrent lumbar disc herniation with a novel annular closure device: a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2013;74:285–9.
    1. Ament J, Thaci B, Yang Z, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a bone-anchored annular closure device versus conventional lumbar discectomy in treating lumbar disc herniations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019;44:5–16.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera