Search

Background: In anterior cervical spine surgery a retractor is obligatory to approach the spine. Previous studies showed an increase of endotracheal tube cuff pressure after placement of a retractor. It is known that high endotracheal tube cuff pressure increases the incidence of postoperative dysphagia, hoarseness, and sore throat. However, until now no evidence supports the fact whether adjusting the endotracheal tube cuff pressure during anterior cervical spine surgery will prevent this comorbidity. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial to determine whether adjusting endotracheal tube cuff pressure after placement of a retractor during anterior cervical spine surgery will prevent postoperative dysphagia. Methods/design: 177 patients (aged 18-90 years) scheduled for anterior cervical spine surgery on 1 or more levels will be included. After intubation, endotracheal tube cuff pressure is manually inflated to 20 mm Hg in all patients. Patients will be randomized into two groups. In the control group endotracheal tube cuff pressure is not adjusted after retractor placement. In the intervention group endotracheal tube cuff pressure after retractor placement is maintained at 20 mm Hg and air is withdrawn when cuff pressure exceeds 20 mm Hg. Endotracheal tube cuff pressure is measured after intubation, before and after placement and removal of the retractor. Again air is inflated if cuff pressure sets below 20 mmHg after removal of the retractor. The primary outcome measure is postoperative dysphagia. Other outcome measures are postoperative hoarseness, postoperative sore throat, degree of dysphagia, length of hospital stay, and pneumonia. The study is a single centre double blind randomized trial in which patients and research nurses will be kept blinded for the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 months. Discussion: Postoperative dysphagia occurs frequently after anterior cervical spine surgery. This may be related to high endotracheal tube cuff pressure. Whether adaptation and maintaining the pressure after placement of the retractor will decrease the incidence of dysphagia, has to be determined by this trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy with interbody fusion cages is considered the standard surgical procedure in patients with cervical disc herniation. However, PEEK or metal cages have some undesirable imaging characteristics, leading to a search for alternative materials not creating artifacts on images; silicon nitride ceramic. Whether patients treated with silicon nitride ceramic cages have similar functional outcome as patients treated with PEEK cages is not known. We present the design of the CASCADE trial on effectiveness of ceramic cages versus PEEK cages in patients with cervical disc herniation and/or osteophytes. Methods/Design: Patients (age 18-75 years) with monoradicular symptoms in one or both arms lasting more than 8 weeks, due to disc herniation and/or osteophytes, are eligible for the trial. The study is designed as a randomized controlled equivalence trial in which patients are blinded to the type of cage for 1 year. The total follow-up period is 2 years. The primary outcome measure is improvement in the Neck and Disability Index (NDI). Secondary outcomes measures include improvement in arm pain and neck pain (VAS), SF-36 and patients' perceived recovery. The final elements of comparison are perioperative statistics including operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. Lateral plane films at each follow-up visit and CT scan (at 6 months) will be used to judge fusion and the incidence of subsidence. Based on a power of 90% and assuming 8% loss to follow-up, 100 patients will be randomized into the 2 groups. The first analysis will be conducted when all patients have 1 year of followup, and the groups will be followed for 1 additional year to judge stability of outcomes. Discussion: While the new ceramic cage has received the CE Mark based on standard compliance and animal studies, a randomized comparative study with the golden standard product will provide more conclusive information for clinicians. Implementation of any new device should only be done after completion of randomized controlled effectiveness trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation. Methods/Design: Patients (age 18-65 years) presenting with radicular signs due to single level cervical disc herniation lasting more than 8 weeks are included. Patients will be randomised into 3 groups: anterior discectomy only, anterior discectomy with interbody fusion, and anterior discectomy with disc prosthesis. The primary outcome measure is symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Other outcome parameters will be the Neck Disability Index, perceived recovery, arm and neck pain, complications, re-operations, quality of life, job satisfaction, anxiety and depression assessment, medical consumption, absenteeism, and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial, in which 3 surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses will be kept blinded of the allocated treatment for 2 years. The follow-up period is 5 years. Discussion: Currently, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation. Whether additional interbody fusion or disc prothesis is necessary and cost-effective will be determined by this trial. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR1289 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decompressive laminotomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with canal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication. New techniques, such as interspinous process implants, claim a shorter hospital stay, less post-operative pain and equal long-term functional outcome. A comparative (cost-) effectiveness study has not been performed yet. This protocol describes the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on (cost-) effectiveness of the use of interspinous process implants versus conventional decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods/Design: Patients (age 40-85) presenting with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis lasting more than 3 months refractory to conservative treatment, are included. Randomization into interspinous implant surgery versus bony decompression surgery will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. Other outcome parameters include perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomized multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 1 year. Discussion: Currently decompressive laminotomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Whether surgery with interspinous implants is a reasonable alternative can be determined by this trial. Trial register: Dutch Trial register number: NTR1307 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The usual surgical treatment of refractory sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, is open discectomy. Minimally invasive procedures, including percutaneous therapies under local anesthesia, are increasingly gaining attention. One of these treatments is Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression (PLDD). This treatment can be carried out in an outpatient setting and swift recovery and return to daily routine are suggested. Thus far, no randomized trial into cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus standard surgical procedure has been performed. We present the design of a randomized controlled trial, studying the cost-effectiveness of PLDD versus conventional open discectomy in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation. Methods/design: The study is a randomized prospective multi-center trial, in which two treatment strategies are compared in a parallel group design. Patients (age 18-70 years) visiting the neurosurgery department of the participating hospitals, are considered for inclusion in the trial when sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation has lasted more than 8 weeks. Patients with disc herniation smaller than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, without concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eligible for participation, and are randomized into one of two treatment arms; either Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression or conventional discectomy. The functional outcome of the patient, as assessed by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 8 weeks and 1 year after treatment, is the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome parameters are recovery as perceived by the patient, leg and back pain, incidence of re-intervention, complications, quality of life, medical consumption, absence of work and secondary costs. Discussion: Open discectomy is still considered to be the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression has at least as much efficacy as the standard surgical procedure, and is more cost-effective, will be determined by this trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25884790. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nerve root decompression with instrumented spondylodesis is the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with symptomatic low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Nerve root decompression without instrumented fusion, i.e. Gill's procedure, is an alternative and less invasive approach. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of decompression according to Gill versus instrumented spondylodesis. Methods/design: All patients (age between 18 and 70 years) with sciatica or neurogenic claudication lasting more than 3 months due to spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grade I or II, are eligible for inclusion. Patients will be randomly allocated to nerve root decompression according to Gill, either unilateral or bilateral, or pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion. The main primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica at 12 weeks and 2 years. Other primary outcome measures are perceived recovery and intensity of leg pain and low back pain. The secondary outcome measures include, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine phosphokinase, quality of life, medical consumption, costs, absenteeism, work perception, depression and anxiety, and treatment preference. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurse will not be blinded during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion: Currently, nerve root decompression with instrumented fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, although scientific proof justifying instrumented spondylodesis over simple decompression is lacking. This trial is designed to elucidate the controversy in best surgical treatment of symptomatic patients with low-grade spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative costeffectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods/Design: Patients (age 18-70 years) presenting with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 6-8 weeks are included. Patients with disc herniation larger than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, or disc herniation less than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter with concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eliglible for participation. Randomisation into microendoscopic discectomy or conventional unilateral transflaval discectomy will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The length of skin incision is equal in both groups. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient, measured by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. We will also evaluate several other outcome parameters, including perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine kinase, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion: Currently, open discectomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether microendoscopic discectomy is more cost-effective than unilateral transflaval discectomy has to be determined by this trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages have been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders, and show good clinical results. Still, complications such as subsidence and migration of the cage are frequently seen. A lack of osteointegration and fibrous tissues surrounding PEEK cages are held responsible. Ceramic implants made of silicon nitride show better biocompatible and osteoconductive qualities, and therefore are expected to lower complication rates and allow for better fusion.Purpose of this study is to show that fusion with the silicon nitride cage produces non-inferior results in outcome of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at all follow-up time points as compared to the same procedure with PEEK cages.Methods/design: This study is designed as a double blind multi-center randomized controlled trial with repeated measures analysis. 100 patients (18-75 years) presenting with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disorders unresponsive to at least 6 months of conservative treatment are included. Patients will be randomly assigned to a PEEK cage or a silicon nitride cage, and will undergo a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Primary outcome measure is the functional improvement measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcome parameters are the VAS leg, VAS back, SF-36, Likert scale, neurological outcome and radiographic assessment of fusion. After 1 year the fusion rate will be measured by radiograms and CT. Follow-up will be continued for 2 years. Patients and clinical observers who will perform the follow-up visits will be blinded for type of cage used during follow-up. Analyses of radiograms and CT will be performed independently by two experienced radiologists.Discussion: In this study a PEEK cage will be compared with a silicon nitride cage in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial in which the silicon nitride cage is compared with the PEEK cage in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders.Trial Registration: NCT01557829. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]