Lumbar Disc Prosthesis Versus Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation; 8-year Follow-up

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

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

NA

Total Enrollment

151 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-09-30

Study Completion Date

2015-11-30

Brief Summary

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

During the past 25-30 years, surgery with total disc replacement (TDR) has become an option for a selection of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) traditionally treated conservatively or operated on with spinal fusion. Randomized trials comparing TDR with fusion have found the clinical outcome of TDR at least equivalent to that of fusion, and the only study comparing TDR to non-surgical treatment (The Norwegian TDR study) concludes that TDR is significantly more effective than multidisciplinary rehabilitation (REHAB) after 2 years. However, the long-term effects of TDR in terms of clinical results, costs, reoperation- and revision rate, degenerative changes and prognostic factors have not been investigated in high quality prospective trials. This is very much required since TDR surgery is offered a great number of patients world wide, and is associated with high complexity and risk of serious complications and difficult revision. Hence, the overall aim of the present study is to evaluate the long term (eight years follow-up) effect of The Norwegian TDR study where TDR surgery were compared to modern multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and localized degenerative disc changes.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Disc Prosthesis Versus Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation

NCT00394732

Chronic Low Back Pain Degenerative Disc Disease

COMPLETED NA

A Study Comparing the Outcome of Anterior Lumbar Fusion and Total Lumbar Disc Replacement

NCT03674190

Disc Disease Degenerative Disk Degeneration Disc Disease Lumbar

WITHDRAWN NA

Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity at at Least Five Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement

NCT06989632

Lumbar Disc Degeneration Lumbar Disc Disease Sciatica +2 more

RECRUITING

Percutaneous Minimal Invasive Pedicular Screw and Rod Insertion in Circumferential Lumbar Fusion

NCT01513577

Degenerative Disc Disease

COMPLETED NA

Degenerative Spondylolisthesis; Micro-decompression vs Decompression + Instrumented Fusion; Long Term Follow up

NCT03469791

Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA

Detailed Description

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

Two-year results of the Norwegian TDR study were published in BMJ in May 2011 (Hellum et al). The current protocol is 8-year follow-up of patients included in the Norwegian TDR study.

Hypothesis of the 8-year follow-up:

Main hypothesis (H0): There are no differences in change between TDR and REHAB for pain and disability measured by Oswestry Disability Index (main outcome), back pain, quality of life, psychological variables, work status, patients satisfaction, drug use, urinary incontinence, and back surgeries after 8 years.

Secondary Hypothesis:

1. There are no differences in incidence and degree of disc degeneration at adjacent level or facet joint degeneration at index level between groups (radiological analysis).
2. There is no association between baseline characteristics, pelvic anatomy / sagittal balance (defined by lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence angle and sacral slope), and clinical outcome after TDR.
3. There is no difference in cost effectiveness between surgery and REHAB 8 years after inclusion to the study.

Statistical analysis:

The investigators will use the same analysis as for 2-years results: two-way ANOVA, mixed model, regression analysis. p\<0.05 will be considered statistically significant

Additional analysis (not conducted at 2 years):

1. cross-overs will receive last value before cross-over/fusion surgery
2. survival analysis
3. pelvic anatomy / sagittal balance (defined by lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence angle and sacral slope) will be included in the predictor analysis
4. Both CT scans and MRI are taken for the evaluation of index level facet arthropathy

Conditions

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

Chronic Low Back Pain

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

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

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

Surgery

Replacement of the degenerative intervertebral lumbar disc with an artificial lumbar disc device (degeneration had to be restricted to the two lower levels (L4/L5 and/or L5/S1))

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Lumbar total disc replacement

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

The surgical intervention consisted of replacement of the degenerative intervertebral lumbar disc with a artificial lumbar disc device in one or two of the lover lumbal levels (L4/L5 or/and L5/S1). The ProDisc consists of three pieces, two metal endplates and a polyethylene core that is fixed to the inferior endplate when the device is implanted, and is implanted through a retroperitoneal (or transperitoneal) access.

Multidiciplinary rehabilitation

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

The intervention is based on a treatment model described by Brox et al (Spine 2003;28:1913-1921) and is also described in details by Hellum et al (BMJ, May 2011). It consisted of a cognitive approach and supervised physical exercise and was delivered by a team of physiotherapists and specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The rehabilitation programme lasted for about 60 hours over three to five weeks.

Interventions

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

Lumbar total disc replacement

The surgical intervention consisted of replacement of the degenerative intervertebral lumbar disc with a artificial lumbar disc device in one or two of the lover lumbal levels (L4/L5 or/and L5/S1). The ProDisc consists of three pieces, two metal endplates and a polyethylene core that is fixed to the inferior endplate when the device is implanted, and is implanted through a retroperitoneal (or transperitoneal) access.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation

The intervention is based on a treatment model described by Brox et al (Spine 2003;28:1913-1921) and is also described in details by Hellum et al (BMJ, May 2011). It consisted of a cognitive approach and supervised physical exercise and was delivered by a team of physiotherapists and specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation. The rehabilitation programme lasted for about 60 hours over three to five weeks.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

ProDisc II, Synthes Spine

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* aged 25-55 years
* had low back pain as the main symptom for at least 1 year
* structured physiotherapy or chiropractic treatment for at least 6 months without sufficient effect
* Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of at least 30
* degenerative intervertebral disc changes in L4/L5 and/or L5/S1.Degeneration had to be restricted to the two lower levels. The following degenerative changes were evaluated: at least 40% reduction of disc height, Modic changes type I and/or II, high-intensity zone in the disc, and morphological changes classified as changes in signal intensity in the disc of grade 3 or 4. The disc was classified as degenerative if the first criteria alone or at least two changes were found on magnetic resonance imaging. The discs were independently classified by two observers (orthopaedic surgeon /radiologist). When in disagreement, the images were classified by a third observer and the outcome decided by simple majority.

Exclusion Criteria

* Generalized chronic pain syndrome (widespread myofascial pain)
* Degeneration established in more than two levels. To be classified as a normal disc, the disc height must not be reduced more than 40% and all other criteria of degenerative disc disease aforementioned must be absent. The classification of a normal disc is performed by two independent observers. If disagreement, the pictures will be classified by a third observer and the outcome decided by simple majority.
* Symptoms of spinal stenosis
* Disc protrusion or recess stenosis with nerve root affection
* Spondylolysis
* Isthmic spondylolisthesis
* Arthritis
* Former fracture of L1 - S1
* Ongoing psychiatric or somatic disease that excludes either one or both treatment alternatives
* Does not understand Norwegian language, spoken or in writing
* Drug abuse
* Osteoporosis
* Congenital or acquired deformity

Patients were examined by an orthopaedic surgeon and a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation together, which had to agree on inclusion.

Minimum Eligible Age

25 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

55 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No