Finnish Trial on Practices of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion (FACADE): a protocol for a prospective randomised non-inferiority trial comparing outpatient versus inpatient care

Kimmo Lönnrot, Simo Taimela, Pirjo Toivonen, Pasi Aronen, Anniina Koski-Palken, Janek Frantzen, Ville Leinonen, Marja Silvasti-Lundell, Johannes Förster, Teppo Jarvinen, FACADE investigators, Kimmo Lönnrot, Teppo Järvinen, Simo Taimela, Marja Silvasti-Lundell, Johannes Förster, Anniina Koski-Palken, Jarno Satopää, Behnam Rezai-Jahromi, Pasi Aronen, Pirjo Toivonen, Marketta Rautanen, Maarit Tuomisto, Kimmo Lönnrot, Simo Taimela, Pirjo Toivonen, Pasi Aronen, Anniina Koski-Palken, Janek Frantzen, Ville Leinonen, Marja Silvasti-Lundell, Johannes Förster, Teppo Jarvinen, FACADE investigators, Kimmo Lönnrot, Teppo Järvinen, Simo Taimela, Marja Silvasti-Lundell, Johannes Förster, Anniina Koski-Palken, Jarno Satopää, Behnam Rezai-Jahromi, Pasi Aronen, Pirjo Toivonen, Marketta Rautanen, Maarit Tuomisto

Abstract

Introduction: Although a great majority of patients with cervical radiculopathy syndrome can successfully be treated non-operatively, a considerable proportion experience persistent symptoms, severe enough to require neurosurgical intervention. During the past decade, cervical spine procedures have increasingly been performed on an outpatient basis and retrospective database analyses have shown this to be feasible and safe. However, there are no randomised controlled studies comparing outpatient care with inpatient care, particularly with emphasis on the patients' perception of symptom relief and their ability to return to normal daily activities and work.

Methods and analysis: This is a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel group non-inferiority trial comparing the traditional hospital surveillance (inpatient, patients staying in the hospital for 1-3 nights after surgery) with outpatient care (discharge on the day of the surgery, usually within 6-8 hours after procedure) in patients who have undergone anterior cervical decompression and fusion procedure. To determine whether early discharge (outpatient care) is non-inferior to inpatient care, we will randomise 104 patients to these two groups and follow them for 6 months using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) as the primary outcome. We expect that early discharge is not significantly worse than the current care in terms of change in NDI. Non-inferiority will be declared if the mean improvement for outpatient care is no worse than the mean improvement for inpatient care, by a margin of 17.3%. We hypothesise that a shorter hospital stay results in more rapid return to normal daily activities, shorter duration of sick leave and decreased secondary costs to healthcare system. Secondary outcomes in our study are arm pain and neck pain using the Numeric Rating Scale, operative success (Odom's criteria), patient's satisfaction to treatment, general quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), Work Ability Score, sickness absence days, return to previous leisure activities and complications.

Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District on 6 June 2019 (1540/2019) and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Trial registration number: NCT03979443.

Keywords: anterior cervical decompression and fusion; cervical spine surgery; outpatient care; protocol; randomised controlled trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, et al. . Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. Brain 1994;117:325–35. 10.1093/brain/117.2.325
    1. Cloward RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg 1958;15:602–17. 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602
    1. Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958;40-A:607–24. 10.2106/00004623-195840030-00009
    1. Albert TJ, Murrell SE. Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1999;7:368–76. 10.5435/00124635-199911000-00003
    1. Miller LE, Block JE. Safety and effectiveness of bone allografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery. Spine 2011;36:2045–50. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ff37eb
    1. Adamson T, Godil SS, Mehrlich M, et al. . Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting compared with the inpatient hospital setting: analysis of 1000 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg 2016;24:878–84. 10.3171/2015.8.SPINE14284
    1. Purger DA, Pendharkar AV, Ho AL, et al. . Outpatient vs inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a population-level analysis of outcomes and cost. Neurosurgery 2018;82:454–64. 10.1093/neuros/nyx215
    1. McGirt MJ, Godil SS, Asher AL, et al. . Quality analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient versus inpatient setting: analysis of 7288 patients from the NSQIP database. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39:E9 10.3171/2015.9.FOCUS15335
    1. Mohandas A, Summa C, Worthington WB, et al. . Best practices for outpatient anterior cervical surgery. Spine 2017;42:E648–59. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001925
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al. . Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594–604. 10.1001/jama.2012.87802
    1. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:409–15.
    1. Westaway MD, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. The patient-specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27:331–8. 10.2519/jospt.1998.27.5.331
    1. Salo P, Ylinen J, Kautiainen H, et al. . Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the neck disability index and the modified neck pain and disability scale. Spine 2010;35:552–6. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b327ff
    1. Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. . Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg 2013;18:154–60. 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312
    1. Froud R, Fawkes C, Foss J, et al. . Responsiveness, reliability, and minimally important and minimal detectable changes of 3 electronic patient-reported outcome measures for low back pain: validation study. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e272 10.2196/jmir.9828
    1. Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, et al. . The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health--a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health 2010;36:404–12. 10.5271/sjweh.2917
    1. Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, et al. . Overview, update, and lessons learned from the International EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 2019;22:23–30. 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010
    1. Zoëga B, Kärrholm J, Lind B. Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur Spine J 2000;9:137–43. 10.1007/s005860050224
    1. Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. Cervical disk lesions. J Am Med Assoc 1958;166:23–8. 10.1001/jama.1958.02990010025006
    1. Rihn JA, Kane J, Albert TJ, et al. . What is the incidence and severity of dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:658–65. 10.1007/s11999-010-1731-8
    1. Martins PC, Couto TE, Gama ACC. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the degree of vocal deviation: correlation between the visual analogue scale and numerical scale. Codas 2015;27:279–84. 10.1590/2317-1782/20152014167
    1. Audigier V, White IR, Jolani S, et al. . Multiple imputation for multilevel data with continuous and binary variables. Statist. Sci. 2018;33:160–83. 10.1214/18-STS646
    1. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. . Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2515–24. 10.1056/NEJMoa1305189
    1. Paavola M, Malmivaara A, Taimela S, et al. . Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2018;362 10.1136/bmj.k2860
    1. Järvinen TLN, Sihvonen R, Bhandari M, et al. . Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:769–72. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.011
    1. Richards T, Schroter S, Price A, et al. . Better together: patient partnership in medical journals. Available: [Accessed 11 Jan 2019].
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al. . Reporting of Noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA 2012;308 10.1001/jama.2012.87802
    1. Etuknwa A, Daniels K, Eib C. Sustainable return to work: a systematic review focusing on personal and social factors. J Occup Rehabil 2019. 10.1007/s10926-019-09832-7. [Epub ahead of print: 15 Feb 2019].

Source: PubMed

3
订阅