The Kiva® System as a Vertebral Augmentation Treatment

NCT ID: NCT01123512

Last Updated: 2014-10-09

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

300 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2010-07-31

Study Completion Date

2013-05-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Kiva VCF Treatment system in comparison to balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures of the thoracic or lumbar spine.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Spinal Fractures Fractures, Compression Back Injuries

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Kiva VCF Treatment System

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Vertebral augmentation

Intervention Type DEVICE

Vertebral augmentation for one or two osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Balloon Kyphoplasty

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Vertebral augmentation

Intervention Type DEVICE

Vertebral augmentation for one or two osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Vertebral augmentation

Vertebral augmentation for one or two osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. The patient is at least 50 years of age
2. The patient has a score on the back pain visual analog scale (VAS) of ≥70 mm after 2 to 6 weeks of conservative care OR a VAS of ≥ 50 mm after 6 weeks of conservative care
3. The patient has an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of ≥ 30%
4. The patient has radiographic evidence of one or two (1-2) A 1.1, A 1.2, A 1.3. fractures as classified by the AO Spine Fracture classification, due to primary or secondary osteoporosis in the thoracic and / or lumbar spine. Note that patients are eligible if they have had treatment of or healed VCF(s) at any non-index level
5. The patient has central pain over the spinous process(es) upon palpation at the Index level(s)
6. The Index fracture(s) is / are acute or persistent (not healed), as demonstrated by T2 weighted STIR MRI (or bone scan if patient is contraindicated for MRI
7. The Index fracture(s) has / have failed conservative care of at least 2 weeks but no longer than 6 months
8. The Index fracture(s) shows radiographic evidence of at least 5% vertebral collapse
9. The pedicle identified for access to the index fracture has a diameter that is ≥ 6 mm
10. The patient is mentally capable and willing to sign a study-specific informed consent as documentation of the informed consent process prior to any study procedures
11. The patient is willing and able to comply with all study requirements including follow-up visits and radiographic assessments

Exclusion Criteria

1. The index fracture(s) has/have been caused by high-energy trauma
2. The index fracture(s) has / have known tumor involvement
3. The index fracture(s) is/are diagnosed as an osteonecrotic fracture(s) by the treating physician
4. The Index fracture(s) is a/are translational force fracture(s) (A2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
5. The index fracture(s) is a/are burst fracture(s) (A 3.3., B or C type) or pedicle fracture(s) with posterior cortical wall disruption
6. The index fracture(s) has / have posterior vertebral wall displacement occupying more than 20% of the cross sectional area of the spinal canal
7. The index fracture(s) has / have severe deformity with reduction of \>75% in any height and accompanying area, using adjacent level as comparison
8. The index level(s) has / have undergone previous surgical treatment for a vertebral body compression fracture or other surgical procedure at the index level(s)
9. Angulation of index fracture(s) makes treatment with Kiva System impossible (at discretion of surgeon)
10. The pedicle identified for access to the index fracture has a diameter less than 6 mm
11. The patient has Paget's disease
12. The patient has a BMI \> 35
13. The patient has uncontrolled diabetes as characterized by hemoglobin HbA1c \>7% and/or blood sugar \>180mg/dL
14. The patient has severe cardiopulmonary deficiencies
15. The patient has myelopathy
16. The patient is on long-term steroid therapy (steroid dose ≥ 30 mg /day for \> 3 months)
17. A medical contraindication to spinal surgery and/or general anesthesia, such as coagulopathy (with a threshold for normal being INR ≤ 1.5, PTT within lab normal range, and platelet count \> 100,000)
18. The patient has spinal canal compromise causing clinical manifestations of cord, neural foramen, or nerve root compression at the level(s) to be treated;
19. The patient has neurologic symptoms or deficits or radiculopathy related to the VCF
20. The patient has pain based on clinical diagnosis of herniated nucleus palposus or severe spinal stenosis (progressive weakness or paralysis)
21. The patient has indications of instability related to the index fracture (≥ 30 degrees of kyphosis, translation \>4mm, interspinous process widening, \> Grade 1 spondylolisthesis and/or \> 25 degrees of scoliosis if the index level is included in the curve)
22. The patient has planned spine surgery for any disorder during or up to 30 days after the study treatment
23. The patient has had spine surgery for any disorder in the 30 days prior to enrollment
24. The patient has a documented active systemic or local infection, such as osteomyelitis or discitis, with a WBC \> 15.0 x 10\^3/µL and a temperature \> 101.5°F
25. The patient has a known allergy to the investigational device materials and / or acrylics / polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or a hypersensitivity to monomers
26. The patient has been diagnosed with hemorrhagic diathesis
27. The patient has uncontrolled psychiatric illness or severe dementia
28. The patient has a baseline back pain visual analog scale (VAS) of \<50 mm if patient has at least 6 weeks of conservative care or \<70 mm if patient has 2-6 weeks conservative care
29. The patient has a baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of \<30%
30. The patient is currently on anti-cancer therapy or anti-HIV therapy
31. Patient has autoimmune or inflammatory rheumatic disease
32. Patient's life expectancy is less than the study duration or undergoing palliative care
33. The patient is known to be a current alcohol or drug abuser
34. The patient is known to be involved in medical litigation including Workmen's Compensation
35. The patient is a prisoner
36. The patient is participating in another investigational study that has a potential for effect to the study treatment or the study endpoints
37. The patient is pregnant or considering getting pregnant during study participation
Minimum Eligible Age

50 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Benvenue Medical, Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Steven R. Garfin, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of California, San Diego, CA

Sean M. Tutton, MD, FSIR

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Medical College of Wisconsin

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

CORE Orthopaedic Medical Center

Encinitas, California, United States

Site Status

El Camino Hospital

Mountain View, California, United States

Site Status

Radiological Associates of Sacramento

Sacramento, California, United States

Site Status

St. Mary's Spine Center

San Francisco, California, United States

Site Status

Radiology Imaging Associates

Englewood, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Mayo Clinic Jacksonville

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Evanston Hospital

Evanston, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Adventist Hospital

Hinsdale, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Spine Institute of Louisiana

Shreveport, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Mayo Clinic-Rochester

Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Sierra Regional Spine Institute

Reno, Nevada, United States

Site Status

Clinical Radiology of Oklahoma

Edmond, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Penn State Hershey Medical Center

Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Medical University of South Carolina

Charleston, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Medical College of Wisconsin

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

CHC Saint Joseph

Liège, , Belgium

Site Status

Toronto Western Hospital

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Site Status

Montreal General Hospital

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Site Status

CHU Amiens Sud

Amiens, , France

Site Status

Universitatsklinikum Bonn

Bonn, , Germany

Site Status

Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann gGmbH

Potsdam, , Germany

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States Belgium Canada France Germany

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Beall DP, Coe JD, McIlduff M, Bloch D, Hornberger J, Warner C, Tutton S. Serious Adverse Events Associated with Readmission Through One Year After Vertebral Augmentation with Either a Polyetheretherketone Implant or Balloon Kyphoplasty. Pain Physician. 2017 Sep;20(6):521-528.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 28934783 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

BEN005

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

OLIF25™ /OLIF51™ Study
NCT02657421 TERMINATED
Restore CLINICAL TRIAL
NCT01609374 UNKNOWN NA