The SNAP trial: a double blind multi-center randomized controlled trial of a silicon nitride versus a PEEK cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders: study protocol

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

F Cumhur Öner²  Terry P Corbin³  Arthur de Gast¹  Kit CB Roes⁵  Mark P Arts⁴  Steven M van Gaalen¹  Roel FMR Kersten¹ 

[1] Clinical Orthopaedic Research Center–midden Nederland (CORC-mN), Department of Orthopaedics, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht/Zeist, The Netherlands;Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;Corbin & Company, Maple Grove, MN, USA;Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, the Hague, The Netherlands;Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

关键词: Randomized controlled trial;    Ceramic implant;    Silicon nitride;    PEEK;    Lumbar interbody fusion;    Spondylolisthesis;    Disc degeneration;   

Others  :  1128752
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-57

 received in 2013-01-18, accepted in 2014-02-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kersten et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Buric J, Pullidori M: Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spin stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4 year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series. Eur Spine J 2011, 20(8):1304-1311.
• [2]Van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM: A cost-of-illness study of back pain in the Netherlands. Pain 1995, 62(2):233-240.
• [3]Adams MA, Dolan P: Spine biomechanics. J Biomech 2005, 38(10):1972-1983.
• [4]Dickson WA, Willien JL: Arthrodesis of the hip joint in degenerative arthritis; a modified one-stage procedure with internal fixation. Rheumatism 1947, 3(7):131-138.
• [5]Caron M, Kron E, Saltrick KR: Tibiotalar joint arthrodesis for the treatment of severe ankle joint degeneration secondary to rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1999, 16(2):337-361.
• [6]Brantigan JW: Pseudoarthrosis rate after allograft posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw and plate fixation. Spine 1994, 19:1271-1280.
• [7]McAfee PC: Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999, 81:859-880.
• [8]Smit TH, Muller R, van Dijk M, Wijsman PIJM: Changes in bone architecture during spinal fusion: three years follow-up and the role of cage stiffness. Spine 2003, 28(16):1802-1808.
• [9]Kandziora F, Schollmeier G, Scholz M, Schaefer J, Scholz A, Schmidmaier G, Schroder R, Bail H, Duda G, Mittlmeier T, Haas NP: Influence of cage design on interbody fusion in a sheep cervical spine model. J Neurosurg 2002, 96(Suppl 3):321-332.
• [10]Weiner BK, Fraser RD: Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine 1998, 23:634-640.
• [11]Goh JCH, Wong HK, Thambyah A, Yu CS: Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine 2000, 25:35-39.
• [12]Tsantrizos A, Andreou A, Aebi M, Steffen T: Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 2000, 9:14-22.
• [13]Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Haggerty CJ, Abumi K, Kaneda K, McAfee P: In vitro biomechanical investigation of the stability and stress-shielding effect of lumbar interbody fusion devices. J Neurosurg 2000, 93(suppl 2):259-265.
• [14]Van Dijk M, Smit TH, Sugihara S, Burger EH, Wuisman PI: The effect of cage stiffness on the rate of lumbar interbody fusion: an in vivo model using poly(l-lactic acid) and titanium cages. Spine 2002, 27:682-688.
• [15]Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW: Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007, 20:60-65.
• [16]Molinari RW, Sloboda J, Johnstone FL: Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? A comparison of 1 versus 2 interbody cages in a military population. Am J Orthop 2003, 32:337-343.
• [17]Skinner HB: Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988, Oct(235):224-236.
• [18]Brown SA, Hastings RS, Mason JJ, Moet A: Characterization of short-fibre reinforced thermoplastics for fracture fixation devices. Biomaterials 1990, 11(8):541-547.
• [19]Kurtz SM, Devine JN: PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 2007, 28:4845-4869.
• [20]Rousseau MA, Lazennec JY, Saillant G: Circumferential arthrodesis using PEEK cages at the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007, 20:278-281.
• [21]Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, Hillard VH, Cerabona F, Das K: Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2006, 5:534-539.
• [22]Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, Burkett CJ, Murray G, Smith DA, Uribe JS: Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2012, 37(14):1268-1273.
• [23]Kim PD, Baron EM, Levesque M: Extrusion of expandable stacked interbody device for lumbar fusion: case report of a complication. Spine 2012, 37(18):E1155-E1158.
• [24]Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB 3rd, Turner AS: Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 2006, 27:324-334.
• [25]Engelhardt A, Salzer M, Zeibig A, Locke H: Experiences with Al2O3 implantations in humans to bridge resection defects. J Biomed Mater Res 1975, 9:227-232.
• [26]Arts MP, Wolfs JF, Corbin TP: The Cascade trial: effectiveness of ceramic versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy with interbody fusion; protocol of a blinded randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013, 14:244. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Bal BS, Khandkar A, Lakshminarayanan R, Clarke I, Hoffman AA, Rahaman MN: Fabrication and testing of silicon nitride bearings in total hip arthroplasty: winner of the 2007 “HAP” PAUL award. J Arthroplasty 2009, 24:110-116.
• [28]Howlett CR, McCartney E, Ching W: The effect of silicon nitride ceramic on rabbit skeletal cells and tissue. An in vitro and in vivo investigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 244:293-304.
• [29]Mazzocchi M, Gardini D, Traverso PL, Faga MG, Bellosi A: On the possibility of silicon nitride as a ceramic for structural orthopaedic implants. Part II: chemical stability and wear resistance in body environment. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008, 19:2889-2901.
• [30]Mazzocchi M, Bellosi A: On the possibility of silicon nitride as a ceramic for structural orthopaedic implants. Part I: processing, microstructure, mechanical properties, cytotoxicity. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008, 19:2881-2887.
• [31]Neumann A, Reske T, Held M, Jahnke K, Ragoss C, Maier HR: Comparitive investigation of the biocompatible of various silicon nitride ceramic qualities in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004, 15(10):1135-1140.
• [32]Bal BS, Rahaman MN: Orthopedic applications of silicon nitride ceramics. Acta Biomater 2012, 8(8):2889-2898.
• [33]Gorth DJ, Puckett S, Ercan B, Webster TJ, Rahaman M, Bal BS: Decreased bacteria activity on Si(3)N4 surfaces compared with PEEK or titanium. Int J Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4829-4840.
• [34]Webster TJ, Patel AA, Rahaman MN, Sonny Bal B: Anti-infective and osteointegration properties of silicon nitride, poly(ether ether ketone) and titanium implants. Acta Biomater 2012, 8(12):4447-4454.
• [35]Youssef JA, Patty CA: Management of patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis and disc degeneration undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a novel ceramic implant with one year follow up. Abstract presented at 7th World Biomaterials Congress, Sydney, Australia 2004.
• [36]Sorrel CC, Hardcastle PH, Druit RK, Howlett CR, McCartney ER: Results of 15-year clinical study of reaction bonded silicon nitride intervertebral spacers. Abstract presented at the 7th World Biomaterials Congress, Sydney, Australia 2004.
• [37]Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N: Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 2001, 26:1873-1878.
• [38]Harms J, Rolinger H: A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (in German). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1982, 120:343-347.
• [39]Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB: Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 1995, 20:1899-1908.
• [40]Roland M, Morris R: A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983, 8:141-144.
• [41]Roland M, Fairbank J: The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000, 25:3115-3124.
• [42]Gommans I, Koes BW: Validity and responsiveness of the Dutch adaptation of the Roland disability questionnaire. In Low Back Pain. Edited by Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. EMGO; 1996:57-70.
• [43]Van der Zee KSR: De psychometrische kwaliteiten van de MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in een Nederlandse populatie. T Soc Gezondheidsz 1993, 71:183-191.
• [44]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473-483.
• [45]Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY: The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2011, 11:205-212.
• [46]Burkus JK, Foley K, Haid RW, Lehuec JC: Surgical interbody research group – radiographic assessment of interbody fusion devices: fusion criteria for anterior lumbar interbody surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2001, 15;10(4):E11.
• [47]Robertson PA, Plank LD: Prospective cohort analysis of disability reduction with lumbar spinal fusion surgery in community practice. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008, 21:235-240.
• [48]Scheufler KM, Dohmen H, Vougioukas VI: Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. Neurosurgery 2007, 60:203-212.
• [49]Ostelo RWJG, de Vet HCW, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA: 24-item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57:268-276.