Dataset Information

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although there is no clear evidence supporting the proclamation of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) being better than open surgery. We present the design of the MISOS (Minimal Invasive Surgery versus Open Surgery) trial on the effectiveness of MISS versus open surgery in patients with degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis.

Methods and analysis

All patients (age 18-75 years) with neurogenic claudication or radicular leg pain based on low-grade degenerative or spondylolytic spondylolisthesis with persistent complaints for at least 3 months are eligible. Patients will be randomised into mini-open decompression with bilateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (MISS), or conventional surgery with decompression and instrumented fusion with pedicle screws and bilateral interbody fusion (open). The primary outcome measure is Visual Analogue Scale of self-reported low back pain. Secondary outcome measures include improvement of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, patients' perceived recovery, quality of life, resumption of work, complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay, incidence of reoperations and documentation of fusion. This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Based on a 20?mm difference of low back pain score at 6 weeks (power of 90%, assuming 8% loss to follow-up), a total of 184 patients will be needed. All analyses will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board Southwest Holland in August 2014 (registration number NL 49044.098.14) and subsequently approved by the board of all participating hospitals. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

NTR 4532, pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Arts MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695319 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial).

Arts Mark P MP Wolfs Jasper Fc JF Kuijlen Jos Ma JM de Ruiter Godard Cw GC

BMJ open 20171112 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients with symptomatic spondylolisthesis are frequently treated with nerve root decompression, in addition to pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion. Minimally invasive approaches are gaining attention in recent years, although there is no clear evidence supporting the proclamation of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) being better than open surgery. We present the design of the MISOS (Minimal Invasive Surgery versus Open Surgery) trial on the effectiveness of M ...[more]

PMID: 29133325

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cause of cancer worldwide. In recent years, the frequency to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been increased, but its real advantages over conventional surgery is still remains. The aim of this study is to compare patients who underwent open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy with those who underwent minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy (MIO) to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the MIO. Methods We did a multicentre prospective, open and parallel, randomised controlled trial in six study centres between April 1st, 2014, and April 30th, 2018. Patients aged 18–75 years with resectable middle and upper esophageal cancer were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy (Group A) or MIO (Group B). The perioperative outcomes were to compare operative time, intraoperative blood loss, total expenses in hospital, hospital stay, the number and location of lymph nodes harvested and respiratory complications within 30 days. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02355249. Results We randomly assigned 339 patients to the Group A and 156 to the Group B. No differences emerged in terms of age (year) [(61.52±8.52) vs. (60.25±6.28), P=0.67], the median lengths of hospital stay (day) [(16.28±8.02) vs. (17.15±11.74), P=0.08]. Group A has less intraoperative blood loss (mL) [(241.1±165.8) vs. (274.0±169.8), P<0.05] and total expenses in hospital (?) [(92,076±27,889) vs. (107,669±32,655), P<0.05], shorter operative time (min) [(267±92.2) vs. (364.3±99.43), P<0.05]. While Group B has palpable advantage in the number [(18.30±11.44) vs. (23.08±12.45), P<0.05] and location [(4.30±2.16) vs. (5.44±2.37), P<0.05] of lymph nodes harvested. The proportion of respiratory complications within 30 days was no statistical difference in the Group B [21/156 (13.5%)] compared to the Group A [45/339 (13.3%)] (Chi-square sig =0.934, P>0.05). Meanwhile, the study makes clear that tumour size has no correlation to operative time (Spearman r =?0.014, P>0.05) and intraoperative blood loss (Spearman r =0.078, P>0.05). Conclusions Compared to open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy, MIO has prominent representation in lymph nodes harvested which is fatal to estimate prognosis and plan sequential treatment plan, although, MIO has some disadvantage such as longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss and total expenses in hospital which is conflicting to previous observational studies conclusion. There is no statistical difference in respiratory complications within 30 days between the two surgical approaches. Next step, survival rate after 2 years will be analyzed and published after the follow-up work is finished.

Project description:IntroductionOesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cause of cancer worldwide. In 2009 in China, the incidence and death rate of oesophageal cancer was 22.14 per 100 000 person-years and 16.77 per 100 000 person-years, respectively, the highest in the world. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) was introduced into clinical practice with the aim of reducing the morbidity rate. The mechanisms of MIO may lie in minimising the reaction to surgical injury and inflammation. There are some randomised trials regarding minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy, with 100-850 subjects enrolled. To date, no large randomised controlled trial comparing minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy has been reported in China, where squamous cell carcinoma predominated over adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.Methods and analysisThis is a 3 year multicentre, prospective, randomised, open and parallel controlled trial, which aims to compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy to open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy for resectable oesophageal cancer. Group A patients receive MIO which involves thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilisation with cervical anastomosis. Group B patients receive the open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy which involves a right thoracotomy and laparotomy with cervical anastomosis. Primary endpoints include respiratory complications within 30 days after operation. The secondary endpoints include other postoperative complications, influences on pulmonary function, intraoperative data including blood loss, operative time, the number and location of lymph nodes dissected, and mortality in hospital, the length of hospital stay, total expenses in hospital, mortality within 30 days, survival rate after 2 years, postoperative pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Three hundred and twenty-four patients in each group will be needed and a total of 648 patients will finally be enrolled into the study.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committees of all participating institutions. The findings of this trial will be disseminated to patients and through peer-reviewed publications and international presentations.Trial registration numberNCT02355249.

Project description:BackgroundWidespread implementation of the minimally invasive technique in pancreatic surgery has proven to be challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatic surgery with open pancreatic surgery using data obtained from RCTs.MethodsA literature search was done using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Web of Science; all available RCTs comparing minimally invasive pancreatic surgery and open pancreatic surgery in adults requiring elective distal pancreatectomy or partial pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Outcomes were mortality rate, general and pancreatic surgery specific morbidity rate, and length of hospital stay.ResultsSix RCTs with 984 patients were included; 99.0 per cent (486) of minimally invasive procedures were performed laparoscopically and 1.0 per cent (five) robotically. In minimally invasive pancreatic surgery, length of hospital stay (-1.3 days, -2 to -0.5, P = 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (-137 ml, -182 to -92, P < 0.001) were reduced. In the subgroup analysis, reduction in length of hospital stay was only present for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (-2 days, -2.3 to -1.7, P < 0.001). A minimally invasive approach showed reductions in surgical site infections (OR 0.4, 0.1 to 0.96, P = 0.040) and intraoperative blood loss (-131 ml, -173 to -89, P < 0.001) with a 75 min longer duration of surgery (42 to 108 min, P < 0.001) only in partial pancreatoduodenectomy. No significant differences were found with regards to mortality rate and postoperative complications.ConclusionThis meta-analysis presents level 1 evidence of reduced length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery compared with open pancreatic surgery. Morbidity rate and mortality rate were comparable, but longer duration of surgery in minimally invasive partial pancreatoduodenectomy hints that this technique in partial pancreatoduodenectomy is technically more challenging than in distal pancreatectomy.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Fractures of the tibial plateau are in constant progression. They affect an elderly population suffering from a number of comorbidities, but also a young population increasingly practicing high-risk sports. The conventional open surgical technique used for tibial plateau fractures has several pitfalls: bone and skin devascularisation, increased risks of infection and functional rehabilitation difficulties. Since 2011, Poitiers University Hospital is offering to its patients a new minimally invasive technique for the reduction and stabilisation of tibial plateau fractures, named 'tibial tuberoplasty'. This technique involves expansion of the tibial plateau through inflation using a kyphoplasty balloon, filling of the fracture cavity with cement and percutaneous screw fixation. We designed a study to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction offered by percutaneous tuberoplasty versus conventional open surgery for tibial plateau fracture and its impact on clinical outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing two surgical techniques in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. 140 patients with a Schatzker II or III tibial plateau fracture will be recruited in France. They will be randomised either in tibial tuberoplasty arm or in conventional surgery arm. The primary outcome is the postoperative radiological step-off reduction blindly measured on CT scan (within 48 hours post-op). Additional outcomes include other radiological endpoints, pain, functional abilities, quality of life assessment and health-economic endpoints. Outcomes assessment will be performed at baseline (before surgery), at day 0 (surgery), at 2, 21, 45 days, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postsurgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the ethics committee Ile-De-France X and will be conducted in accordance with current Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki and standard operating procedures. The results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrial.gov:NCT03444779.

Project description:IntroductionNumbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.Methods and analysisUK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.Ethics and disseminationA favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN13930454.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.DesignMulticentre observational study.SettingProspective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Participants885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.InterventionsLaminectomy and microdecompression.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.ResultsThe study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval -1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).ConclusionAt one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial).

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (MISOS trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets