The European Robotic Spinal Instrumentation (EUROSPIN) Study

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

UNKNOWN

Total Enrollment

615 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-02-20

Study Completion Date

2023-09-01

Brief Summary

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

In a multinational prospective study, preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative and follow-up data on patients receiving thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement for degenerative disease or infections or tumors will be collected. The three arms consist of robot-guided (RG), navigated (NV), or freehand (FH) screw insertion.

Related Clinical Trials

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

The Spinal Navigation Trial - Surgical Navigation or Free Hand Technique in Spine Surgery

NCT05107310

Scoliosis Kyphosis

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA

Clinical Study With a Robotic Assistant in Patients Requiring a Spinal Transpedicular Fixation

NCT06153511

SPINAL Fracture Vertebral Fractures Spinal Stenosis +3 more

COMPLETED NA

A Multi-Center Post-Market Data Collection Protocol to Evaluate the Performance of Orthofix Spine Devices

NCT05082090

Spinal Disorders/Injuries

ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING

Cortical Bone Trajectory With Patient Guide

NCT05844358

Degenerative Disc Disease

COMPLETED

MySpine MC Versus MySpine Standard

NCT05846477

Degenerative Disc Disease Osteochondrosis Spondylolysis Lumbar

UNKNOWN

Detailed Description

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

Introduction A decade ago, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was considered a promising development in spine surgery, yet the value of the pioneering technologies was questionable. With the growing number of experienced MIS surgeons, the influx of evidence in favour of MIS is rapidly increasing. This makes a compelling argument towards MIS offering distinct clinical benefits over open approaches in terms of blood loss, length of stay, rehabilitation, cost-effectiveness and perioperative patient comfort. Due to the limited or inexistent line-of-sight in MIS procedures, surgeons need to rely on imaging, navigation, and guidance technologies to operate in a safe and efficient manner. Therefore, a plethora of new and ever improving navigational systems have been developed. These systems allow a consistent level of safety and accuracy, on par with results achieved by very experienced free hand surgeons, with a reasonably short learning curve. Computer-based navigation systems were first introduced to spine surgery in 1995 and while they have been long established as standards in certain cranial procedures, they have not been similarly adopted in spine surgery.

Designed to overcome some of the limitations of navigation-based technologies, robot-guided surgery has become commercially available to surgeons worldwide, like SpineAssist® (Mazor Robotics Ltd. Caesarea, Israel) and the recently launched ROSA™ Spine (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). These systems are rapidly challenging the gold standards. SpineAssist®, and its upgraded version, the Renaissance®, provides a stable drilling platform and restricts the surgeon's natural full range of motion to 2 degrees of freedom (up/down motion and yaw in the cannula). The system's guidance unit moves into the trajectory based on exact preoperative planning of pedicle screws, while accounting for changes in intervertebral relationships such as due to distraction, cage insertion or changes between the supine patient position in the preoperative CT and the prone patient on the operating table. Published evidence on robot-guided screw placement has demonstrated high levels of accuracy with most reports ranging around 98% of screws placed within the pedicle or with a cortical encroachment of less than 2 mm.4 Although the reliability and accuracy of robot-guided spine surgery have been established, the actual benefits for the patient in terms of clinical outcomes and revision surgeries remain unknown. We have recently conducted cohort studies that showed some evidence that robotic guidance lowers the rate of intraoperative screw revisions and implant related reoperations compared to free hand procedures, while achieving comparable clinical outcomes. We now want to assess these factors, among others, on a higher level of evidence. We aim to conduct a prospective, multicenter, multinational controlled trial comparing clinical and patient reported outcomes of robotic guided (RG) pedicle screw placement vs. navigated (NV) vs. free hand (FH) pedicle screw placement using pooled data from three centers.

Study Design The European Robotic Spinal Instrumentation (EUROSPIN) study is a prospective, international, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, non-randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of three techniques for pedicle screw instrumentation, namely RG, NV (CT-, O-Arm, or 3DFL-based), and FH. Following the baseline evaluation, patients will receive one of the three treatments, and will subsequently be followed up for 24 months (Figure 1). The primary analysis will be conducted using the 12-month data.

Sample Size Calculation It was determined that, to detect an intergroup difference of 5% in the primary endpoint, 205 patients are required per group to achieve a power of 1 - beta = 0.8 at alpha = 0.05. The incidence rates were based on the published literature, with an approximated incidence rate of the primary endpoint of 0% for the intervention and 5% for the control group. Because the study protocol is in line with the normal clinical follow-up of most centers, a low dropout rate is expected. This led to a minimum total sample size of 615 patients.

Monitoring An epidemiologist from the sponsor institution will organize an initiation monitor visit at every participating center before starting recruitment. This monitor visit will check whether all study staff are properly trained and the delegation of tasks are well documented (complete Investigator Site File, training and delegation logs). An additional audit will be carried out at 6 months after initiation of recruitment to check whether source documentation and eCRF documentation is similar. Throughout the entire study additional queries by the monitor are send to the investigator in the data capturing system to ensure proper data capturing.

Conditions

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

Degenerative Disc Disease Spondylolisthesis Spinal Stenosis Recurrent Disc Herniation Spondylodiskitis Spinal Tumor Spinal Metastases

Study Design

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

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

PROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

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

Robot-Guided Transpedicular Instrumentation

This arm will comprise all patients that receive transpedicular instrumentation by use of a robotic guidance system (SpineAssist or Renaissance, Mazor Robotics, Ltd., Caesarea, Israel or ROSA Spine, Medtech, Montpellier, France).

Transpedicular Instrumentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Transpedicular screw placement and instrumentation

Navigated Transpedicular Instrumentation

This arm will comprise all patients that receive transpedicular instrumentation by use of navigation (computer assistance using CT, O-arm or 3D-fluoroscopic imaging).

Transpedicular Instrumentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Transpedicular screw placement and instrumentation

Freehand Transpedicular Instrumentation

This arm will comprise all patients that receive transpedicular instrumentation by use of the conventional freehand technique.

Transpedicular Instrumentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Transpedicular screw placement and instrumentation

Interventions

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

Transpedicular Instrumentation

Transpedicular screw placement and instrumentation

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Informed consent
* Thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement
* Indication for surgery: Degenerative pathologies (stenosis, spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease, recurrent disc herniation), infections, tumors, fractures, trauma
* Age ≥ 18

Exclusion Criteria

* Deformity surgery
* \>5 index levels

Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Responsible Party

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

Marc Schröder

Head of Department

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

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

Victor E Staartjes, BMed

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics

Marc L Schröder, MD, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics

Paulien M van Kampen, PhD

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Department of Epidemiology, Bergman Clinics

Locations

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