Active clinical trials for "Intervertebral Disc Degeneration"

The main objective of this study was to validate the clinical effectiveness of interbody fusion with a one-segment extension for the treatment of adjacent segmental space discs in the surgical treatment of lumbar degeneration.

FDA Cleared interbody product for the cervical spine, designed to match a patients DEXA scan for increase in fusion rate.

Compare the lumbar fusion rates at 12 and 24 months when lumbar arthrodesis is performed using Virtuous or Autograft Bone Graft. Surgical approach is limited to TLIF (MIS or Open) with posterior fixation and supplemental posterolateral fusion as directed by physician, but must comply with FDA approved/cleared indication for use and labeling.

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a major cause of chronic low back pain (> 40%). It can be defined by specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features, with a strong correlation between pain and the inflammatory aspect of the disc, resulting in active disc disease (AD). The Modic classification based on MRI of the lumbar spine is considered a reference. The management of low back pain in patients with inflammatory disc disease generally involves intra-disc corticosteroid infiltration, which has been widely proven to be effective in reducing pain [4-6]. However, this procedure can be painful and invasive and sometimes impossible to perform due to severe disc impingement. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy on pain of para-disc infiltration of corticosteroids in contact with the inflammatory MRI signal abnormality (Modic 1) when it is lateralized. This variant of infiltration is easier to perform (no catheterisation of the disc and therefore quicker), would entail less risk of disc infection and would be accessible to more radiologists. It is already practised but, to our knowledge, has never been the subject of a study to evaluate its effectiveness on pain. If successful, more patients could be treated and the range of treatment could be extended.

This study will be a prospective, open-label, multi-center study including 72 patients that will collect additional safety and efficacy data for the Spinal Stabilization Technologies PerQdisc Nucleus Replacement System.

This is a prospective single-center study. Patients requiring posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative disease are prospectively enrolled and followed. Patients enrolled in this study have asymptomatic pre-existing spinal canal stenosis at adjacent segment. This study will focus on the effects of preventative limited decompression at adjacent segment.

The proposed investigation is a multi-center, prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the BAGUERA®C to the control, a similar, legally marketed total disc replacement device in subjects with symptomatic cervical disc disease (SCDD) at two contiguous levels. Subjects will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the two-level BAGUERA®C Cervical Disc Prosthesis (investigational group) or to the two-level Mobi-C® Cervical Disc (control group). Subjects enrolled in the study will be evaluated pre-operatively, at the time of surgery, discharge, and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and then annually until 7 years post-surgery.

The objectives of this longitudinal study are to assess and measure fusion status (fused or not fused) and rate of bony fusion using NanoBone® Synthetic Bone Graft in patients requiring one to two level lumbar posterolateral fusion procedures with or without commercially available rigid spinal instrumentation. Our hypothesis is that the Nanobone synthetic bone graft will be as effective at creating a fusion in the lumbar spine as compared with a local bone graft. Each subject will serve as their own control during this study, as patients will receive the Nanobone graft on the right side of their spine and the local bone graft on their left side.

A multicenter, prospective, non-randomized, historically controlled study. To demonstrate the Synergy Disc is at least as safe and effective as conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to treat cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD) in subjects who are symptomatic at two levels from C3 to C7 are and are unresponsive to conservative management. Patients will be evaluated preoperatively, at the time of surgery, and at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Follow-up will continue annually until the last patient reaches 24-month follow-up. The primary analysis will occur at 24 months.

To date, no consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective to treat cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multilevel symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). It remains unknown to what extent kinematics, surgery-induced fusion and natural history of disease play a role in its development. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. ACDA is often discouraged as the implant costs are higher whilst the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF. However, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long-term. In this randomized controlled trial patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months till 4 years postoperatively. High quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking, to date no prospective trials from a societal perspective exist. Considering the ageing of the population and the rising healthcare costs, the need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question is high.