3D, Dynamic and Mechanically-informed Decision Making in AIS
NCT ID: NCT04761549
Last Updated: 2024-10-01
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.
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
NA
100 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2021-01-19
2026-01-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The current treatment recommendation to stop curve progression for an immature patient with a scoliosis curve between 25 and 40 degrees is to wear a brace. If the curve in the skeletally immature patient is not responding to the brace treatment, dynamic scoliosis correction by vertebral body tethering can be considered when there is still some growth potential left. State-of-the-art guidelines for the selection of fusion levels are currently mainly based on two-dimensional (2D) static radiographic parameters (such as, the Cobb angle and Shoulder balance) and a qualitative assessment of 2D bending or traction radiographs. Several classification systems and algorithms that are based on the 2D static radiographic (X-ray) parameters exist to assist surgeons in determining the appropriate levels to be instrumented. Despite this wide range of classification systems and detailed guidelines available in the literature, spinal fusion does not always yield satisfying 2D radiographic clinical outcome, with revision rates ranging from 3.9% to 22%.
Overall, the surgeon is presently not provided with 3D dynamic and mechanical information regarding the deformity of the AIS to guide the decision-making. Obtaining this vital 3D dynamic information regarding the curvature and mechanical behavior of the spine will allow the surgeon to make an evidence-based and well-informed decisions in the treatment of the AIS patient. Consequently, realizing these objectives has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, reduce the postoperative complications and accordingly reduce socio-economic costs associated with AIS treatment. Recent advances in the use of subject specific musculoskeletal models will form the basis to realize this shift from 2D to 3D dynamic in AIS care.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
A New 3D Geometrical Modelisation of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis and Conception of a Personal Brace
NCT01336114
Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of a New Predictive Model for the Progression of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
NCT02434003
Feasibility Study of MID-C for AIS
NCT03071445
Safety and Effectiveness Evaluation of the Minimal Invasive Deformity Correction (MID-C) System in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS)
NCT02200302
Feasibility Evaluation Study of the MID-C Device
NCT03071471
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The current treatment recommendation to stop curve progression for an immature patient with a scoliosis curve between 25 and 40 degrees is to wear a brace. If the curve in the skeletally immature patient is not responding to the brace treatment, dynamic scoliosis correction by vertebral body tethering can be considered when there is still some growth potential left. This recent (2019) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved device for tethering gradually corrects the scoliosis by slowing growth on the convex side of the curve. This technique is minimally invasive, preserves motion, and does not preclude spinal fusion surgery when unsuccessful, but at the moment long term results are lacking. When a curve reaches 50 degrees, it's clinically expected to further progress and further growth potential is low, a "scoliosis fusion" surgery is recommended. This type of surgery permanently attaches all vertebrae in the area to be corrected to each other by surgical instrumentation. In order to reach the desired surgical outcome, one of the main decisions to be made by the treating surgeon is the selection of the appropriate fusion levels (i.e. the upper and lower instrumented vertebra). State-of-the-art guidelines for the selection of fusion levels are currently mainly based on two-dimensional (2D) static radiographic parameters (such as, the Cobb angle and Shoulder balance) and a qualitative assessment of 2D bending or traction radiographs. Several classification systems and algorithms that are based on the 2D static radiographic (X-ray) parameters exist to assist surgeons in determining the appropriate levels to be instrumented. Despite this wide range of classification systems and detailed guidelines available in the literature, spinal fusion does not always yield satisfying 2D radiographic clinical outcome, with revision rates ranging from 3.9% to 22%. Besides an adequate correction of the spinal curve in all three planes, factors such as shoulder level, clinical rib and lumbar hump, as well as scar size, play a major role in the evaluation of treatment success. This contributes to the fact that spinal fusion in AIS patients is a costly procedure. Therefore, the potential limitations of the current state-of-the-art surgical decision making should be critically examined and improved where possible.
There are three main limitations of the state-of-the-art classification systems highlighted in the literature. The first limitation is that classification systems use 2D static radiographic parameters to provide guidelines for a three-dimensional (3D) deformity of the spine. The second limiting factor is that the current classification systems do not include dynamic components. Even though, it has been shown that a 2D radiographic assessment is not representative of spinal balance during daily life activities. The third limitation is that the surgeon has only limited information on the mechanical behavior of the patient's spine. Mechanical information of the spine, such as the spine stiffness (i.e. a measure of the force required to deform a patient's spine), is critical for the selection of the appropriate fusion levels that, for example, would result in balanced shoulders.
Overall, the above highlighted limitations indicate that the surgeon is presently not provided with 3D dynamic and mechanical information regarding the deformity of the AIS to guide the decision-making. Consequently, there is an immediate need to overcome this apparent gap in the decision-making in AIS by identifying the key parameters that provide the surgeon with vital 3D dynamic information regarding the deformity. Obtaining this vital 3D dynamic information regarding the curvature and mechanical behavior of the spine will allow the surgeon to make an evidence-based and well-informed decisions in the treatment of the AIS patient. Consequently, realizing these objectives has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, reduce the postoperative complications and accordingly reduce socio-economic costs associated with AIS treatment. Recent advances in the use of subject specific musculoskeletal models will form the basis to realize this shift from 2D to 3D dynamic in AIS care.
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.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
DIAGNOSTIC
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Questionnaires, Radiological EOS scan, 3D Dynamic Motion analysis
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* 10-35 years old
* Patient is scheduled to be surgically treated by vertebral body tethering (VBT) or selective fusion at UZ Leuven
* Informed consent obtained: also from parent/guardian in case of minors
Exclusion Criteria
* Patient has a severe underlying illness which might influence the outcome of the surgery
* Making it reasonable for the investigator to exclude the patient
10 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven
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.
Sebastiaan Schelfaut
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
UZ Leuven
Leuven, Vlaams-Brabant, Belgium
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.
S64400
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.