Evaluation of Interbody Cage Insertion in Treatment of Lumbar Disc Prolapse

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

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

2 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-10-01

Study Completion Date

2020-12-01

Brief Summary

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

Comparison between discectomy alone and interbody cage insertion in treatment of lumbar disc prolapse

Related Clinical Trials

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

Comparison Between Insertion of Bilateral Straight Cages Versus Unilateral Banana Cage in Lumbar Fusion Surgery

NCT07312747

Lumbar Disc Herniation

NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA

Endoscopic Decompression Versus Microscopic Decompression in Lumbar Canal Stenosis

NCT06381167

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA

Comparison Between Conventional vs. Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy

NCT03137485

Lumbar Disc Herniation

COMPLETED NA

Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy: RCT, Non-inferiority Trial

NCT03924700

Lumbar Herniated Intervertebral Disc

COMPLETED NA

Can Minimally Invasive Decompression Surgery Restore Sagittal Balance in a Patient Population With Sagittal Imbalance and Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

NCT06075355

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Detailed Description

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

Discectomy for lumbar disc herniation is one of the most common operation performed worldwide for lumbar-related symptoms. The basic principle of the various techniques is to relieve the nerve root compression induced by the herniation. Over the past 30 years, many technical improvements have decreased operative trauma by reducing incision size, thereby reducing postoperative pain and hospital stay and time off work, while improving clinical outcome. Magnification and illumination systems by microscope and endoscope have been introduced to enable minimally invasive techniques. Lumbar interbody fusion using cages has gained momentum in the recent years after approval of the cages by the FDA (United States Federal Drug Administration) for lumbar interbody insertion. The indications for this procedure remain controversial and include mechanical low back pain, degenerative disc disease, recurrent disc herniation, spondylolisthesis (grade I). In degenerative disc disease or following surgical discectomy, segmental stenosis occurs due to a combination of disc herniation, posterior osteophyte formation, facet overriding and hypertrophy and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy. All these factors combine to compromise the nerve root as it exits through the intervertebral foramen resulting in recurrent radiculopathy. In such cases, Lumbar inter body fusion using cages can open up the intervertebral foramen by maintaining or restoring disc height. On the other hand, there is considerable controversy surrounding the effectiveness of lumbar fusion for the treatment of low back pain. Among the different surgical approaches available, with or without instrumentation, none can be considered the "gold standard". The technique and results of inter body fusion were first reported by Cloward. It did not, however, gain widespread acceptance due to technical difficulties. Insertion of a rectangular bone graft makes it difficult to avoid nerve root trauma resulting in radicular deficit or irritation and dural tears. Non-union or bone graft extrusion were reported as well as bone graft collapse with subsequent segmental stenosis.In the past few years, rigid cages housing autogenous bone have become increasingly popular for the purpose of interbody fusion. Their ease of insertion has decreased the technical difficulties of the earlier Cloward approach and makes the procedure more reproducible. The rigidity of the cages also allows for the preservation of the disc space. Cages are available in a wide variety of shapes and designs, the most common being the cylindrical and rectangular wedge shaped cages.

Conditions

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

Lumbar Disc Herniation

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.

Simple lumbar discectomy

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Interbody cage insertion in lumbar disc prolapse

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Discectomy alone versus interbody cage insertion in treatment of lumbar disc proapse

Lumbar discectomy with inter vertebral cage

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Interbody cage insertion in lumbar disc prolapse

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Discectomy alone versus interbody cage insertion in treatment of lumbar disc proapse

Interventions

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

Interbody cage insertion in lumbar disc prolapse

Discectomy alone versus interbody cage insertion in treatment of lumbar disc proapse

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

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

Discectomy

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients with lumbar disc prolapse one or two levels.
* Patients (age \>18 and \< 70 years old).
* Patients fit for surgery.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients with instability of lumbar spine.
* Patients with degenerative diseases.
* More than two levels
* Patients \<18 or \>70 years.
* Patients unfit for surgery.

Minimum Eligible Age

17 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

70 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No