SPONGIT: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolysthesis (SPONGIT)
Primary Purpose
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
France
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Circumferential arthrodesis
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis focused on measuring Spondylolisthesis, degeneration, spinal fusion
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Adults aged less than 75,
- Having been informed about clinical trial objectives and risk,
- Covered by health insurance system,
- Suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (whatever the grade and intervertebral disc height) needing one-level surgical fusion due to either invalidating lombalgia/radiculalgia despite 6-month optimal medical treatment and/or motor neurological symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Previous lumbar fusion,
- Previous spine traumatism,
- Presence of at least one major contraindication to surgery and/or general anaesthesia (ie, non controlled coagulopathy, active infection, or serious underlying disease, auto-immune affection).
- Presence of at least one contraindication to either TLIF or GPLI,
- Severe radiological osteoporosis.
- Active cancer at time of inclusion into the study.
- Unlikely to comply with the requirements of the study and/or to complete the study for psychological, social, familial or geographical reasons.
- Under any administrative or legal supervision.
Sites / Locations
- Service de chirurgie orthopédique, Hôpital Pellegrin Tripode
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Arm Label
1
2
Arm Description
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation combined to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Success rate defined as fusion associated to at least a 3-degree increase of segmental lordosis angle and the absence of a reintervention due to a failure of the initial intervention
Secondary Outcome Measures
Major complication (ie, life threatening haemorrhage, severe and persisting neurological worsening, deep infection) rate, and minor complication rate
Success rate defined as both fusion and at least 3-degree increase of segmental lordosis angle
Lumbar and radicular pain outcome
Functional outcome: Oswestry Disability Index and modified Prolo Economic and Functional scores
Change of pelvic and radiological parameters (ie, lumbar lordosis angle, medial intervertebral space height
Quality of life outcome: SF-36
Per and post operative surgery parameters (ie, operative time, blood loss, hospitalization stay duration)
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT00869882
First Posted
March 25, 2009
Last Updated
October 29, 2014
Sponsor
University Hospital, Bordeaux
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00869882
Brief Title
SPONGIT: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolysthesis
Acronym
SPONGIT
Official Title
Comparison of 2 Surgical Approaches in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolysthesis: Posterolateral Fusion With Instrumentation (GPLI) Plus or Minus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
October 2014
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
June 2009 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
November 2013 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
November 2013 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
University Hospital, Bordeaux
4. Oversight
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
This trial, conducted in adult patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis needing surgical treatment at one level, aimed at comparing two approaches of spinal fusion.
Detailed Description
Degenerative spondylolisthesis is defined as the slip of one vertebra onto the other due to degenerative lesions; the L4-L5 intervertebral space is mainly involved. Mean age of symptomatic disease is about 60. Surgery is indicated in the presence of radiculalgia and/or neurological claudication and/or invalidating lombalgia, worsening neurological deficit, presence of sphincterian incontinence.
Surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis usually consists in neural decompression followed by posterolateral fusion with instrumentation. In the literature, fusion rate is estimated to be 80% with GPLI and seems to be increased by interbody fusion, especially transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion which has the advantage of unilateral disc interspace route, and fusion rate over 90%.
It seems that hypolordosis in the instrumented segments caused increased loading of the posterior column in the adjacent segments. These biomechanical effects may explain the degenerative changes at the junction level that have been observed as long-term consequences of lumbar fusion.
In addition to fusion, segmental lordosis gain seems to be an important long-term prognostic factor. Segmental lordosis recovery (upper than 3° in order to take into account measurement variability), was never assessed after TLIF procedure nor compared to that after posterolateral fusion in controlled randomized clinical trials.
The main objective of the study is the comparison of efficacy between circumferential fusion (TLIF plus GPLI) and GPLI alone as surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in term of "Success" rate, defined as fusion and at least 3-degree increase of segmental lordosis angle, 24 months after surgery.
In this trial, included patients will be randomly assigned to undergo either posterolateral fusion with instrumentation (GPLI) or circumferential fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) combined to GPLI. In both arms, bone autograft will be performed using loose fragments obtained during neurological decompression.
Six visits are planned during the study: pre-inclusion visit within 3 months before surgery, inclusion/randomisation on the day before surgery, 3 follow-up visits (2, 6, and 12 months after surgery) and an end of study visit 24 months after surgery (or at time of withdrawal if relevant). Hospital stay (about one week, on average) is planned after surgery.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
Keywords
Spondylolisthesis, degeneration, spinal fusion
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
60 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
1
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation combined to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Arm Title
2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Circumferential arthrodesis
Other Intervention Name(s)
TLIF+GPLI
Intervention Description
Patients are carefully positioned in the proned position and submitted to a posterior surgical approach under general anaesthesia. Surgical levels are viewed laterally by mean of intraoperative radiographs which can be performed at surgeon's demand during the whole surgery time.
The preceding procedure is performed. In case of foraminal stenosis, decompression is performed at the same time as discal approach via the narrowest foramen.
In addition to this, before preparation of bed for bone grafting, nerve roots are retracted and the disc nucleus is removed entirely, then endplate decortication is performed. The disc space is distracted. The most anterior part of the disc space is packed with cancellous bone. A cage packed with bone is inserted into the anterior portion of the interspace. According to cage location, bone graft could be inserted in the posterior portion of the interspace. Cage placement is radiologically checked.
The end of the procedure is the same as for GPLI.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Posterolateral fusion with instrumentation
Other Intervention Name(s)
GPLI
Intervention Description
Patients are carefully positioned in pronation and submitted to a posterior surgical approach under general anaesthesia. Surgical levels are viewed laterally by mean of intraoperative radiographs performed at surgeon's demand during the whole surgery time.
Pedicle screw instrumentation is performed, followed by posterior neural decompression depending on the type of stenosis:
Central stenosis: decompression is performed including medial facectomy, laminectomy;
Foraminal stenosis: foraminotomy is performed, while preserving a graft bed as large as possible;
Pure foraminal stenosis: spinal duct is not opened. Local bone is harvested from the lamina and the spinous process and carefully fragmented for autologous graft.
Subperiosteal dissection is performed between the transverse processes and lateral aspects of the facet joints.
Two rods are placed and locked on screws in maximum compression to optimize segmental lordosis.
Bone autograft is placed into this bed.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Success rate defined as fusion associated to at least a 3-degree increase of segmental lordosis angle and the absence of a reintervention due to a failure of the initial intervention
Time Frame
24 months after surgery
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Major complication (ie, life threatening haemorrhage, severe and persisting neurological worsening, deep infection) rate, and minor complication rate
Time Frame
within 24 months after surgery
Title
Success rate defined as both fusion and at least 3-degree increase of segmental lordosis angle
Time Frame
6 and 12 months after surgery
Title
Lumbar and radicular pain outcome
Time Frame
2, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery
Title
Functional outcome: Oswestry Disability Index and modified Prolo Economic and Functional scores
Time Frame
2, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery
Title
Change of pelvic and radiological parameters (ie, lumbar lordosis angle, medial intervertebral space height
Time Frame
2, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery
Title
Quality of life outcome: SF-36
Time Frame
2, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery
Title
Per and post operative surgery parameters (ie, operative time, blood loss, hospitalization stay duration)
Time Frame
within hospital stay due to surgery
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
74 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Adults aged less than 75,
Having been informed about clinical trial objectives and risk,
Covered by health insurance system,
Suffering from degenerative spondylolisthesis (whatever the grade and intervertebral disc height) needing one-level surgical fusion due to either invalidating lombalgia/radiculalgia despite 6-month optimal medical treatment and/or motor neurological symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria:
Previous lumbar fusion,
Previous spine traumatism,
Presence of at least one major contraindication to surgery and/or general anaesthesia (ie, non controlled coagulopathy, active infection, or serious underlying disease, auto-immune affection).
Presence of at least one contraindication to either TLIF or GPLI,
Severe radiological osteoporosis.
Active cancer at time of inclusion into the study.
Unlikely to comply with the requirements of the study and/or to complete the study for psychological, social, familial or geographical reasons.
Under any administrative or legal supervision.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Patrick GUERIN, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University Hospital Bordeaux, France
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Antoine BENARD, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University Hospital Bordeaux, France
Official's Role
Study Chair
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Service de chirurgie orthopédique, Hôpital Pellegrin Tripode
City
Bordeaux
ZIP/Postal Code
33076
Country
France
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
1141255
Citation
Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Jun;57(4):467-74.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10708989
Citation
Frymoyer JW. Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Diagnosis and Treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994 Jan;2(1):9-15. doi: 10.5435/00124635-199401000-00002.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16582855
Citation
Cummins J, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Hanscom B, Abdu WA, Birkmeyer NJ, Herkowitz H, Weinstein J. Descriptive epidemiology and prior healthcare utilization of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial's (SPORT) three observational cohorts: disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Apr 1;31(7):806-14. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000207473.09030.0d.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8073311
Citation
Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Kreuter W. Low back pain hospitalization. Recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Jun 1;19(11):1207-12; discussion 13. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199405310-00002.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
6546064
Citation
Brown MD, Lockwood JM. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Instr Course Lect. 1983;32:162-9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
2936744
Citation
Kostuik JP, Harrington I, Alexander D, Rand W, Evans D. Cauda equina syndrome and lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Mar;68(3):386-91.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
132329
Citation
Magora A. Conservative treatment in spondylolisthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Jun;(117):74-9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11012048
Citation
Matsunaga S, Ijiri K, Hayashi K. Nonsurgically managed patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 10- to 18-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg. 2000 Oct;93(2 Suppl):194-8. doi: 10.3171/spi.2000.93.2.0194.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
7631240
Citation
Herkowitz HN. Spine update. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 May 1;20(9):1084-90. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199505000-00018.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18287602
Citation
Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H; SPORT Investigators. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 21;358(8):794-810. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707136.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10749631
Citation
Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Mar 1;25(5):556-62. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200003010-00005.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
2071615
Citation
Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Jul;73(6):802-8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10488513
Citation
Gibson JN, Grant IC, Waddell G. The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Sep 1;24(17):1820-32. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9431616
Citation
Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2807-12. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712150-00003.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15087793
Citation
Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Apr 1;29(7):726-33; discussion 733-4. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000119398.22620.92.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15094543
Citation
Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Feb 15;29(4):455-63; discussion Z5. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000090825.94611.28.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9089940
Citation
Ray CD. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Mar 15;22(6):667-79; discussion 679-80. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17873808
Citation
Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Sep 15;32(20):2178-83. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b1bd8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16721298
Citation
Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH, Bae SC, Suk KS. Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 20;31(12):1351-7; discussion 1358. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17952277
Citation
Dantas FL, Prandini MN, Ferreira MA. Comparison between posterior lumbar fusion with pedicle screws and posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in adult spondylolisthesis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2007 Sep;65(3B):764-70. doi: 10.1590/s0004-282x2007000500006.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16732636
Citation
La Rosa G, Cacciola F, Conti A, Cardali S, La Torre D, Gambadauro NM, Tomasello F. Posterior fusion compared with posterior interbody fusion in segmental spinal fixation for adult spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2001 Apr 15;10(4):E9. doi: 10.3171/foc.2001.10.4.10.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11242386
Citation
Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Mar 1;26(5):567-71. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15672243
Citation
Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 2005 Aug;14(6):551-8. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1. Epub 2005 Jan 26.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11723406
Citation
Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L. Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord. 2001 Dec;14(6):533-40. doi: 10.1097/00002517-200112000-00013.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16816765
Citation
Lauber S, Schulte TL, Liljenqvist U, Halm H, Hackenberg L. Clinical and radiologic 2-4-year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jul 1;31(15):1693-8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000224530.08481.4e.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11795753
Citation
Lowe TG, Tahernia AD. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Jan;(394):64-72. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200201000-00008.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15767888
Citation
McAfee PC, DeVine JG, Chaput CD, Prybis BG, Fedder IL, Cunningham BW, Farrell DJ, Hess SJ, Vigna FE. The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Mar 15;30(6 Suppl):S60-5. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155578.62680.dd.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16021015
Citation
Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Aug;18(4):337-46. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000166642.69189.45.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
14744283
Citation
Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery. 2004 Feb;54(2):368-74; discussion 374. doi: 10.1227/01.neu.0000103493.25162.18.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
10870136
Citation
Umehara S, Zindrick MR, Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Vrbos LA, Knight GW, Miyano S, Kirincic M, Kaneda K, Lorenz MA. The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 1;25(13):1617-24. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200007010-00004.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
11563617
Citation
Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001 Aug;10(4):314-9. doi: 10.1007/s005860000239.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15965708
Citation
Champain S, Benchikh K, Nogier A, Mazel C, Guise JD, Skalli W. Validation of new clinical quantitative analysis software applicable in spine orthopaedic studies. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jun;15(6):982-91. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0927-1. Epub 2005 Jun 17.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
7676341
Citation
Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Jun 15;20(12):1410-8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12844045
Citation
Rillardon L, Levassor N, Guigui P, Wodecki P, Cardinne L, Templier A, Skalli W. [Validation of a tool to measure pelvic and spinal parameters of sagittal balance]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2003 May;89(3):218-27. French.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
6450426
Citation
Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug;66(8):271-3. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
3787326
Citation
Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M. Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Jul-Aug;11(6):601-6. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198607000-00012.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
1593914
Citation
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
9859917
Citation
Finlay AY. Quality of life assessments in dermatology. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 1998 Dec;17(4):291-6. doi: 10.1016/s1085-5629(98)80026-6.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
SPONGIT: Comparison of Two Surgical Approaches in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolysthesis
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs