3D-printed Porous Titanium Alloy Cages Versus PEEK Cages in Patients With Osteoporosis
NCT ID: NCT04086784
Last Updated: 2021-09-17
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.
UNKNOWN
90 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2020-01-15
2022-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Repair of the Large Bone Defects Through 3D Printed Individualized Porous Implant
NCT04466397
The Clinical Study of 3D-printed Magnesium Alloy Prosthesis With Controllable Degradation Rate in the Repair of Periarticular Bone Defects
NCT06349629
A Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Biologic Hollow Bone Screws
NCT06942247
Efficacy of Bioceramic Materials for Bone Defects Repair
NCT06249906
Pilot Clinical Trial of CPC/rhBMP-2 Microffolds as Bone Substitute for Bone Regeneration
NCT02609074
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The 3D-printed porous titanium alloy cages have been proved to have advantages in speeding up and enhancing the lumbar fusion over conventional PEEK cages. Therefore, we hypothesize that patients undergoing PLIF with 3D-printed cages can achieve lumbar fusion earlier than those using PEEK cages, thus the 3D-printed cages can reduce the load on pedicle screws sooner than PEEK cages. Finally, the 3D-printed cages can reduce the loosening rate and increase the fusion rate.
The osteoporotic patients requiring posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) with cages at the lowest fusion segment are prospectively enrolled and followed up. The researchers will invite appropriate patients to participate in the study after their surgical plans are determined. General patients data are collected after informed consent, such as age, gender, weight, height, bone mineral density measured in T-scores and Hounsfield units, detailed surgical plans, and etc. They are followed up at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months according to our clinical routine, including lumbar x-ray and certain questions about the clinical outcomes. In addition, this study requires the patients to have lumbar CT scans when the fusion status is unclear in x-ray, especially for the 6 months follow-up.
The patients undergoing PLIF with the 3D-printed porous titanium alloy cages are compared with those using conventional PEEK cages. The primary endpoints are the loosening rate and fusion rate at 6 months follow-up. The secondary endpoints are the loosening rate and fusion rate at other time point of follow-up , and the clinical outcomes(ODI and VAS) at every follow-up.
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.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
3D-printed Cage
Patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with 3D-printed Porous Titanium Alloy Cages at the lowest fusion segment
No interventions assigned to this group
Peek Cage
Patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion with PEEK Cages at the lowest fusion segment
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* lumbar degenerative diseases requiring lumbar fusion with pedicle screw fixation, such as degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
* no response to nonoperative treatment of at least 3 months
* osteoporosis diagnosed by any method for bone mineral density evaluation, such as DXA, QCT，or vertebral Hounsfield units
* the lowest instrumented vertebrae were at L5 or S1
* the surgical plan includes lumbar interbody fusion with cages at the lowest fusion level
* informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
* no lumbar CT scans within 3 months before the surgery
* no dual energy x-ray absorptiometry within 6 months before the surgery
* spondylolysis
* allergic to metal
* history of lumbar fusion surgery
* cervical myelopathy，thoracic spinal stenosis, motor neuron disease,tuberculosis of spine,spinal tumor
50 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Peking University Third Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Li Weishi
Director of the orthopaedic department
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Weishi Li, M.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Peking University Third Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Peking University Third Hospital
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Pannell WC, Savin DD, Scott TP, Wang JC, Daubs MD. Trends in the surgical treatment of lumbar spine disease in the United States. Spine J. 2015 Aug 1;15(8):1719-27. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.014. Epub 2013 Oct 31.
Amirouche F, Solitro GF, Magnan BP. Stability and Spine Pedicle Screws Fixation Strength-A Comparative Study of Bone Density and Insertion Angle. Spine Deform. 2016 Jul;4(4):261-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.008. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K. Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation: a study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. Spine J. 2001 Nov-Dec;1(6):402-7. doi: 10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00078-x.
Bredow J, Boese CK, Werner CM, Siewe J, Lohrer L, Zarghooni K, Eysel P, Scheyerer MJ. Predictive validity of preoperative CT scans and the risk of pedicle screw loosening in spinal surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Aug;136(8):1063-7. doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2487-8. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
Chen P, Li Z, Hu Y. Prevalence of osteoporosis in China: a meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2016 Oct 3;16(1):1039. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3712-7.
Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ. Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J. 2015 May;24(5):1005-16. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3768-6. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Uei H. Clinical course and significance of the clear zone around the pedicle screws in the lumbar degenerative disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Apr 15;33(8):903-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b1eff.
Bokov A, Bulkin A, Aleynik A, Kutlaeva M, Mlyavykh S. Pedicle Screws Loosening in Patients With Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbar Spine: Potential Risk Factors and Relative Contribution. Global Spine J. 2019 Feb;9(1):55-61. doi: 10.1177/2192568218772302. Epub 2018 May 24.
Goldstein CL, Brodke DS, Choma TJ. Surgical Management of Spinal Conditions in the Elderly Osteoporotic Spine. Neurosurgery. 2015 Oct;77 Suppl 4:S98-107. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000948.
Janssen I, Ryang YM, Gempt J, Bette S, Gerhardt J, Kirschke JS, Meyer B. Risk of cement leakage and pulmonary embolism by bone cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2017 Jun;17(6):837-844. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.01.009. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
McGilvray KC, Easley J, Seim HB, Regan D, Berven SH, Hsu WK, Mroz TE, Puttlitz CM. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J. 2018 Jul;18(7):1250-1260. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.018. Epub 2018 Feb 26.
Li P, Jiang W, Yan J, Hu K, Han Z, Wang B, Zhao Y, Cui G, Wang Z, Mao K, Wang Y, Cui F. A novel 3D printed cage with microporous structure and in vivo fusion function. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019 Jul;107(7):1386-1392. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36652. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
M2019270
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.