SLIP II Registry: Spinal Laminectomy Versus Instrumented Pedicle Screw Fusion
NCT ID: NCT03570801
Last Updated: 2025-09-29
Study Results
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.
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
662 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-10-17
2028-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
In addition, the SLIP II registry aims to (i) develop an algorithm which could identify cases in which surgical experts are likely to recommend one treatment (i.e. \>80% of experts recommend one form of treatment) and (ii) develop a radiology-based machine learning algorithm that would prospectively classify patients as either 'stable' or 'unstable.'
In addition to patient reported outcomes, step counts will be collected in order to determine the correlation of step count with patient-reported outcomes (ODI and EQ-5D) and the need for re-operation.
This registry portion of the study aims to prospectively collect comparative data for these patients treated with either decompression alone or decompression with fusion.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparative Study of Anterior vs. Posterior Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
NCT02564705
Greenwich Lumbar Stenosis SLIP Study
NCT00109213
Decompression vs. Fusion for Stable Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
NCT02348645
Validation of Appropriateness Criteria for the Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
NCT02966639
Focused Spinal Stenosis Rehabilitation Program for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
NCT02982291
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Background: Surgery may be offered to patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who fail nonoperative treatment measures including physical therapy and epidural steroid injections. For patients with lumbar stenosis without spondylolisthesis, a decompression alone is typical, while those patients who do have degenerative spondylolisthesis and who also have significant mechanical back pain may be offered lumbar decompression with or without fusion. These guidelines were written based upon the SPORT study, which provided the highest quality of evidence available at the time. Additional studies have show that costly interventions such as lumbar fusion may ultimately be cost-effective if they provide durable clinical benefit. Two recent publications in The New England Journal of Medicine present new evidence with conflicting results on superficial review. The Spinal Laminectomy versus Instrumented Pedicle Screw (SLIP) trial provides level I evidence for the efficacy of fusion to improve clinical outcomes and lower reoperation rates compared to a standard laminectomy and medial facetectomy over a four year time frame in patients with neurogenic claudication associated with stable single level spondylolisthesis. Conversely, the Swedish study provides level II evidence that the addition of a variety of fusion techniques does not have significant benefit in the first two years following operation compared to a variety of decompression techniques in a heterogeneous population of patients with stenosis associated with spondylolisthesis. The patient populations treated, surgical techniques used, and outcome measures assessed differed between the two studies and when taken together, underline the need to new comparative effectiveness data for patients with this problem.
Additionally, one key challenge surgeons face is whether or not to recommend a spinal fusion. Spinal fusion is expensive, assoicated with greater costs and complications, but it appears to be necessary in at least 30% of patients.3 Preliminary data suggests that when when greater than 80% of an expert panel votes for one treatment opition, either a fusion or decompression alone, and when a patient's actual treatment aligns with the expert panel recommention, the patient-reported outcomes are greater than when the surgical approach is not aligned with the expert panel.10 This data highlights an interest in developing articifical intelligence (AI) that may be able to aid in both identification and predictive tasks. Any progress in this realm would be enormously powerful from a clinical standpoint and would likely result in more efficient use of surgical appraoches and in turn, healthcare spending.
All images that are captured in the registry will be used to train convolutional neural networks (CNN). These are mathematical operations which extract patterns from image data and generalize it across many images fed into the dataset. They primarily use calculations to extract patterns which are stored as a model which will be a collection of numbers. The images stored in this registry will be used to develop algorithms to assess cases in which an expert panel is more likely to suggest one treatment over the other as well as develop an algorithm that would prospectively classify patients as either 'stable' or 'unstable.'
Plan: Before making a decision regarding which specific operation should be performed in each case, each patient will be randomized to receive an expert panel review or to not receive an expert panel review. For patients who receive an expert panel review, the patients' de-identified lumbar MRI (sagittal and key axial images), 36-inch standing plain radiographs (if available), and flexion and extension radiographs will be uploaded into a web-based platform and reviewed with plans to share the reviews with patients and their treating physicians in real time. For patients who are randomized to no expert panel review, they will discuss with their surgeon the best surgical option for them and proceed as they would in standard of care. Patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and single level degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis will be treated either with decompression or decompression with fusion. Symptomatic spinal stenosis will be defined as radicular and/or back pain either induced by or aggravated by activity and relieved by rest in a patient with either moderately severe or severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient-reported outcomes will be captured at baseline, at 3 and 6 months, and annually out to five years.
The imaging data will be used to create artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that will help assess when an expert panel is more likely to suggest one treatment over the other as well as develop an algorithm that would prospectively classify patients as either 'stable' or 'unstable.' Ultimately long term follow-up will help confirm whether a case was correctly assessed as stable or unstable. A patient would be confirmed as unstable, if they underwent decompression alone and then required a re-operation to stabilize the spine at the level of spondylolisthesis within 5 years of the initial operation. In a similar way, a patient would be confirmed as stable, if no re-operation were necessary over the 5-year study follow-up period.
Select sites will participate in an assessment of the utilization of step count as an outcome. Average step count will be captured pre-operatively as well as at 3- and 6-months and annually out to 5 years. The mean step count at each time point will be compared to the mean change scores for ODI and EQ-5D. Additionally, average step counts overtime will be analyzed for those patients who undergo a re-operation.
Interim Analysis: An interim analysis is planned when 150 patients have reached eligibility at 6 month follow-up. Patients' change from baseline patient-reported outcome questionnaires will be assessed.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Expert Panel Review
For patients who are randomized to receive an expert panel review, de-identified lumbar MRI (sagittal and key axial images), 36-inch standing plain radiographs (if available), and flexion and extension radiographs will be uploaded into a web-based platform and reviewed. These will be submitted for an Expert Panel Review.
Images will be reviewed through a Spine Expert's Network, consisting of physicians involved in this study who will each offer their opinion as to which of two surgical treatment groups (decompression alone or decompression with fusion) they would choose for the patient. The results of this review will be discussed between the patient and the patient's physician. Together, they will determine the best surgical approach.
Expert Panel Review
There is some preliminary evidence suggesting that having a group of spinal experts review x-rays prior to treatment might provide useful information to the patient and the patients' treating physician when trying to make a decision about what type of surgery to perform.
No Expert Panel Review
For patients not receiving the expert panel review, they will discuss with their surgeon the best surgical option and proceed as they would in standard of care.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Expert Panel Review
There is some preliminary evidence suggesting that having a group of spinal experts review x-rays prior to treatment might provide useful information to the patient and the patients' treating physician when trying to make a decision about what type of surgery to perform.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Single-level grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis (3-14mm)
Exclusion Criteria
* Spondylolysis
* Multilevel spondylolisthesis or high grade spondylolisthesis (grade II or greater than 14mm)
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Lahey Clinic
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Zoher Ghogawala, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Lahey Hospital & Medical Center
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Barrow Brain and Spine
Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
University of California, San Fransisco
San Francisco, California, United States
University of Miami
Miami, Florida, United States
Carle Neurosciences Institute
Urbana, Illinois, United States
Goodman Campbell Brain & Spine
Carmel, Indiana, United States
Norton Leatherman Spine Center
Louisville, Kentucky, United States
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Lahey Hospital & Medical Center
Burlington, Massachusetts, United States
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota, United States
Hospital for Special Surgery
New York, New York, United States
Columbia University
New York, New York, United States
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
University of Utah Hospital
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
University Health Network - Toronto Western Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2017-047
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.