Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Extreme Lateral Interbody FusionFUSION (XLIF) Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) (XLIF)

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04589572
Recruitment Status : Suspended (Because of COVID-19)
First Posted : October 19, 2020
Last Update Posted : January 12, 2021
Sponsor:
Collaborators:
Jessa Hospital
Sint-Trudo Hospital
Sint-Franciscus Ziekenhuis
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Frank Vandenabeele, Hasselt University

Brief Summary:

Since the first successful spinal fusion surgery using a modern stabilization technique in 1909, surgical fusion has become one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. The incidence of lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative conditions has more than doubled from 2000 until 2009. Despite the high incidence of fusion surgery, the decision making in lumbar fusion surgery is complicated by a wide variety of indications (the greatest measured in any surgical procedure). This could indicate there might be an overuse of lumbar fusion. However, decompression alone, or non-operative care for degenerative conditions may risk progressive spinal instability, intractable pain, and neurological impairment. These complications in the absence of fusion surgery, clearly demonstrate the beneficial effects of adding spinal fusion surgery. Because of its beneficial effect and high usage, it is of greatest importance to reduce postoperative disability and pain, by diminishing surgical invasiveness.

Traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are used to treat degenerative diseases of the spinal column. These techniques require an extensive dissection of the paraspinal musculature, which in term can lead to muscle denervation, loss of function, muscular atrophy, and spinal instability. It has also been known that paraspinal muscle damage induced during surgery is related to long term disability and pain. With this knowledge, minimally invasive spine surgery began to develop in the mid-twentieth century. Since then, new direct approaches to the lumbar spine, known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), have been introduced.

This study will focus on XLIF. Ozgur. 2006 first reported the XLIF procedure, as a minimally invasive procedure that approaches the spine from the lateral via the space between the 12th rib and the highest point of the iliac crest. This approach allows direct access to the intervertebral disc space without disruption of the peritoneal structures or posterior paraspinal musculature. Ohba. 2017 compared XLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws to traditional PLIF, and found that PLIF was associated with less intraoperative blood loss, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) counts, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and creatine kinases (CK) levels, indicating less muscle damage. Postoperative recovery of performance was significantly faster in the XLIF group. 1-year disability and pain scores were also significantly lower in the XLIF group. Despite these significant better results reported in the XLIF group, the systematic review of Barbagallo. 2015 concluded that there is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) versus PLIF/ TLIF surgery. This indicates that the evidence for choosing between XLIF or a traditional approach is still scarce, and no recommendations can be made.

This study will focus on comparing XLIF to PLIF. The objective of this study is to compare clinical and structural outcome measures between the XLIF and PLIF groups, to confirm our hypothesis that the minimally invasiveness of the XLIF technique facilitates a significant faster post-operative recovery, and improves functional and structural outcomes.


Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Muscle Damage Atrophy Degenerative Diseases, Spinal Cord Procedure: XLIF Procedure: PLIF Not Applicable

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment : 40 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description: EXTREME LATERAL INTERBODY FUSION (XLIF) VERSUS POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION (PLIF)
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Structural and Funcional Outcomes of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Compared to Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)
Actual Study Start Date : January 1, 2020
Estimated Primary Completion Date : October 1, 2021
Estimated Study Completion Date : January 1, 2022

Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: XLIF - group Procedure: XLIF
the XLIF procedure, a minimally invasive procedure that approaches the spine from the lateral via the space between the 12th rib and the highest point of the iliac crest.

Active Comparator: PLIF - Group Procedure: PLIF
open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are used to treat degenerative diseases of the spinal column.




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Paraspinal muscle biopsy [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    From each participant a sample will be obtained from the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscle before (T0) and after lumbar surgery (T4). These samples will be obtained using a minimally invasive ultrasound guided percutaneous biopsy technique using a local anesthetic. The samples will be immediately frozen. After cutting these will be used for immunofluorescent staining for myosin heavy chain I, IIA, and IIX. These staining's will be analyzed to measure muscle fiber size and number. These data will be used to evaluate within and between group differences in atrophy or shift in muscle fiber typing.

  2. Paraspinal muscle biopsy [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    From each participant a sample will be obtained from the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscle before (T0) and after lumbar surgery (T4). These samples will be obtained using a minimally invasive ultrasound guided percutaneous biopsy technique using a local anesthetic. The samples will be immediately frozen. After cutting these will be used for immunofluorescent staining for myosin heavy chain I, IIA, and IIX. These staining's will be analyzed to measure muscle fiber size and number. These data will be used to evaluate within and between group differences in atrophy or shift in muscle fiber typing.

  3. concentration of C-Reactive Protein [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  4. concentration of C-Reactive Protein [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  5. concentration of C-Reactive Protein [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  6. concentration of C-Reactive Protein [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  7. concentration of Calcium [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  8. concentration of Calcium [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  9. concentration of Calcium [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  10. concentration of Calcium [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  11. concentration of Phosphate [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  12. concentration of Phosphate [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  13. concentration of Phosphate [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  14. concentration of Phosphate [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  15. concentration of Creatine kinase [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  16. concentration of Creatine kinase [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  17. concentration of Creatine kinase [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  18. concentration of Creatine kinase [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  19. concentration of Myoglobine [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  20. concentration of Myoglobine [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  21. concentration of Myoglobine [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  22. concentration of Myoglobine [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  23. concentration of Lactate dehydrogenase [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  24. concentration of Lactate dehydrogenase [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  25. concentration of Lactate dehydrogenase [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  26. concentration of Lactate dehydrogenase [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis

  27. concentration of Alkaline phosphatase [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Blood analysis

  28. concentration of Alkaline phosphatase [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  29. concentration of Alkaline phosphatase [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    Blood analysis

  30. concentration of Alkaline phosphatase [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Blood analysis


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    MRI images will be used to evaluate paraspinal and iliopsoas muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and functional cross-sectional area (FCSA).

  2. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    MRI images will be used to evaluate paraspinal and iliopsoas muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and functional cross-sectional area (FCSA).

  3. DEXA-san (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry). [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    Participants will undergo a DEXA-scan to evaluate body composition

  4. DEXA-san (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry). [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Participants will undergo a DEXA-scan to evaluate body composition

  5. activity tracker [ Time Frame: From - 1 week up to week 8 (24 hours a day) ]
    Participant will were an activity tracker from -1 week -1 until week 8 to compare activity patterns between groups

  6. Visual analogue scale (VAS) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between "no pain" and "worst pain."

  7. Visual analogue scale (VAS) [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between "no pain" and "worst pain."

  8. Visual analogue scale (VAS) [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between "no pain" and "worst pain."

  9. Visual analogue scale (VAS) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    The visual analog scale (VAS) is a validated, subjective measure for acute and chronic pain. Scores are recorded by making a handwritten mark on a 10-cm line that represents a continuum between "no pain" and "worst pain."

  10. Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) [ Time Frame: - 1 Week ]
    Participants are asked to indicate the degree to which they have specific thoughts and feelings when they are experiencing pain using the 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) scale.

  11. Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    Participants are asked to indicate the degree to which they have specific thoughts and feelings when they are experiencing pain using the 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time) scale.

  12. Pain vigilance and awareness questionnaire (PVAQ) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    The PVAQ is a 16-item measure of attention to pain that assesses awareness, consciousness, vigilance, and observation of pain.

  13. Pain vigilance and awareness questionnaire (PVAQ) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    The PVAQ is a 16-item measure of attention to pain that assesses awareness, consciousness, vigilance, and observation of pain.

  14. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    This is a questionnaire than has been proven valid and reliable to evaluate the restrictions that people with low back pain experience during their daily living. The final score/index ranges from 0-100. A score of 0-20 reflects minimal disability, 21-40 moderate disability, 41-60 severe disability, 61-80 crippled, and 81-100 bed-bound.

  15. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    This is a questionnaire than has been proven valid and reliable to evaluate the restrictions that people with low back pain experience during their daily living. The final score/index ranges from 0-100. A score of 0-20 reflects minimal disability, 21-40 moderate disability, 41-60 severe disability, 61-80 crippled, and 81-100 bed-bound.

  16. EQ5D questionaire [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    The EQ-5D is a standardized questionnaire in which five levels of health (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/ discomfort, anxiety/ depression ) can be scored. The patients also has to indicate how he/she experiences their health state on a scale from 0 to 100.

  17. EQ5D questionaire [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    The EQ-5D is a standardized questionnaire in which five levels of health (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/ discomfort, anxiety/ depression ) can be scored. The patients also has to indicate how he/she experiences their health state on a scale from 0 to 100.

  18. Physical Activities Scale For Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    The PASIPD is a reliable and valid questionnaire consisting of 13 items to measure the physical activity of people with disabilities. The average hours per day for each item is scored, and is multiplied by a metabolic equivalent (MET) value associated with the intensity of the activity and summing over items 2 through 13. Scores range from 0 (no activity) to >100 METS hour/day (very high).

  19. Physical Activities Scale For Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    The PASIPD is a reliable and valid questionnaire consisting of 13 items to measure the physical activity of people with disabilities. The average hours per day for each item is scored, and is multiplied by a metabolic equivalent (MET) value associated with the intensity of the activity and summing over items 2 through 13. Scores range from 0 (no activity) to >100 METS hour/day (very high).

  20. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    : The TSK is an ordinal 17 item questionnaire that inventories pain-related fear of movement for persons with subacute and chronic low back pain or fibromyalgia. The higher the score the more fear of movement will be present, with a maximum score of 68. The cut of value to state a patient is experiencing fear of movement is 37/68.

  21. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    : The TSK is an ordinal 17 item questionnaire that inventories pain-related fear of movement for persons with subacute and chronic low back pain or fibromyalgia. The higher the score the more fear of movement will be present, with a maximum score of 68. The cut of value to state a patient is experiencing fear of movement is 37/68.

  22. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) [ Time Frame: - 1 week ]
    The PS is a simple measure of functional status, originally developed by the ECOG to evaluate cancer treatment toxicity. It has scores from 0-5 that correlate with the Karnofsky scale. Although this instrument has been developed to evaluate cancer treatment, it has been used to evaluate the post-operative performance status in persons undergoing lumbar surgery

  23. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) [ Time Frame: 24 hours after surgery ]
    The PS is a simple measure of functional status, originally developed by the ECOG to evaluate cancer treatment toxicity. It has scores from 0-5 that correlate with the Karnofsky scale. Although this instrument has been developed to evaluate cancer treatment, it has been used to evaluate the post-operative performance status in persons undergoing lumbar surgery

  24. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) [ Time Frame: 48 hours after surgery ]
    The PS is a simple measure of functional status, originally developed by the ECOG to evaluate cancer treatment toxicity. It has scores from 0-5 that correlate with the Karnofsky scale. Although this instrument has been developed to evaluate cancer treatment, it has been used to evaluate the post-operative performance status in persons undergoing lumbar surgery

  25. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) [ Time Frame: week 8 ]
    The PS is a simple measure of functional status, originally developed by the ECOG to evaluate cancer treatment toxicity. It has scores from 0-5 that correlate with the Karnofsky scale. Although this instrument has been developed to evaluate cancer treatment, it has been used to evaluate the post-operative performance status in persons undergoing lumbar surgery

  26. Dietary intake [ Time Frame: up to week 8 ]
    Participant will be asked to register their food intake using a standardized form. This will be done on two week days, and one day during the weekend. This outcome will be used to asses a difference in protein intake, that might affect muscle atrophy after surgery (control parameter).

  27. Blood loss [ Time Frame: week o ]
    Surgical blood loss needs to be reported in milliliters.

  28. Operating time [ Time Frame: week o ]
    Time from the incision until closing of the operating site will be reported.

  29. Complications [ Time Frame: week o ]
    Bleeding, infection, nerve damage, re-intervention, permanent injuries will be reported



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 65 Years   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Clinical single level disc degeneration
  • Age between 18 and 65 years old
  • Understand Dutch (writing and speaking)
  • Symptom duration ≤ 5 years

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Involvement of the L5-S1 or L2-L3 segment
  • Psychiatric pathology/ problems (e.g. substance abuse)
  • Pregnancy
  • Being non-suitable for surgery
  • BMI ≥35
  • Other diagnosed neurological or musculoskeletal diseases that might affect the spinal column
  • Not being able to function independently (activities of daily living)

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04589572


Locations
Layout table for location information
Belgium
Jessa Ziekenhuis
Hasselt, Belgium, 3500
Sint-Franciscus Ziekenhuis
Heusden-Zolder, Belgium, 3550
Sint-Trudo Ziekenhuis
Sint-Truiden, Belgium, 3800
Sponsors and Collaborators
Hasselt University
Jessa Hospital
Sint-Trudo Hospital
Sint-Franciscus Ziekenhuis
Investigators
Layout table for investigator information
Principal Investigator: Frank Vandenabeele, prof. dr. Hasselt University
Study Chair: Sjoerd stevens, drs. Hasselt University
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Frank Vandenabeele, Principal Investigator, Hasselt University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04589572    
Other Study ID Numbers: UH-XLIF-001
First Posted: October 19, 2020    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: January 12, 2021
Last Verified: January 2021

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Spinal Diseases
Neurodegenerative Diseases
Atrophy
Pathological Conditions, Anatomical
Bone Diseases
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Nervous System Diseases