Dataset Information

Does Patient Blinding Influence Clinical Outcomes After Annular Closure Device Implantation? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Awareness of treatment group assignment in a clinical trial may influence patient behavior and bias outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in blinded vs unblinded patients who were treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing lumbar discectomy with (n=272) vs without (n=278) implantation of a bone-anchored ACD. Among patients who received ACD implantation, 35 (13%) were blinded and 237 (87%) were unblinded to treatment allocation. In patients treated with ACD, propensity score-matching (1:1) was performed to account for imbalances in patient characteristics between blinded and unblinded groups. Key clinical outcomes were back pain severity (0-100 scale), leg pain severity (0-100 scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0-100 scale), symptomatic reherniation, reoperation at the treated lumbar level, and device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were reported through 2 years of follow-up, which coincided with the time at which blinded patients were unblinded.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in 2-year outcomes between propensity score-matched blinded (n=35) and unblinded (n=35) patients treated with the ACD. In blinded vs unblinded ACD patients compared to baseline, back pain severity decreased by 40 vs 37 points (P=0.61), leg pain severity decreased by 75 points in each group (P>0.99), and ODI decreased by 47 vs 43 points (P=0.19). The risks of symptomatic reherniation (5.7% vs 9.1%; P=0.59), reoperation (8.6% vs 12.2%, P=0.62), and device- or procedure-related serious AEs (5.7% vs 8.9%, P=0.63) were comparably low in blinded and unblinded patients.

Conclusion

In patients treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored ACD, there were no clinically important or statistically significant differences in back pain, leg pain, ODI, symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, or serious AEs over 2 years of follow-up when comparing patients who were blinded vs unblinded to their treatment assignment. The main limitations of this study were the post hoc nature of the analysis and the potential for bias due to surgeon awareness of treatment assignment.

SUBMITTER: Bouma GJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6850684 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Patient Blinding Influence Clinical Outcomes After Annular Closure Device Implantation? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Bouma Gerrit J GJ van den Brink Wimar W Miller Larry E LE Wolfs Jasper Fc JF Arts Mark P MP

Orthopedic research and reviews 20191108

<h4>Background</h4>Awareness of treatment group assignment in a clinical trial may influence patient behavior and bias outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in blinded vs unblinded patients who were treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing lumbar discectomy with (n=272) vs without (n=278) i ...[more]

PMID: 31807089

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe current study aims to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture in improving the live birth rate (LBR), ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), and pregnancy loss (early abortion rate, late abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate) in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF).DesignThis retrospective study compares the outcomes of patients with RIF who underwent frozen embryo transfer (FET) with or without acupuncture.SettingThe medical records of patients diagnosed with RIF and visiting Chengdu Xi'nan Gynecological Hospital between January 2018 and June 2021 were reviewed. The Chengdu Xi'nan Gynecological Hospital Ethics Committee approved this retrospective study (No. 2021-029).ParticipantsA total of 923 patients with RIF who underwent FET were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: the Acupuncture (n = 303) and the Non-acupuncture groups (n = 620).ExposureThe Acupuncture group consisted of 303 RIF patients who received acupuncture therapy in addition to standard hormone replacement therapy (HRT)/delayed hormone replacement therapy (d-HRT) for FET. The Non-acupuncture group consisted of 620 RIF patients who received only standard HRT/d-HRT for FET.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the LBR. The secondary outcome referred to OPR, CPR, BPR, and pregnancy loss.ResultsThe Acupuncture group had significantly higher BPR (P = 0.08) and CPR (P = 0.049) than the Non-acupuncture group. A potentially higher LBR (P = 0.16) and OPR (P = 0.248) were observed in the Acupuncture group than in the Non-acupuncture group. However, the survival analysis did not show that acupuncture significantly promoted live birth.ConclusionsAcupuncture is an appropriate adjunctive technique in the in vitro fertilization process as it improves biochemical and clinical pregnancies. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious about the role of acupuncture throughout the whole pregnancy cycle.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies exist for large defects comparing matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (M-ACI) with other cartilage repair methods due to the limited availability of suitable comparator treatments.PurposeTo compare the clinical efficacy of a novel hydrogel-based M-ACI method (NOVOCART Inject plus) versus microfracture (MFx) in patients with knee cartilage defects.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsPropensity score matched-pair analysis was used to compare the 24-month outcomes between the M-ACI treatment group from a previous single-arm phase 3 study and the MFx control group from another phase 3 study. Patients were matched based on preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), symptom duration, previous knee surgeries, age, and sex, resulting in 144 patients in the matched-pair set (72 patients per group). The primary endpoint was the change in least-squares means (ΔLSmeans) for the KOOS from baseline to the 24-month assessment.ResultsDefect sizes in the M-ACI group were significantly larger than in the MFx group (6.4 versus 3.7 cm2). Other differences included defect location (no patellar or tibial defects in the MFx group), number of defects (33.3% with 2 defects in the M-ACI group versus 9.7% in the MFx group), and defect cause (more patients with degenerative lesions in the M-ACI group). The M-ACI group had higher posttreatment KOOS (M-ACI versus MFX: 81.8 ± 16.8 versus 73.0 ± 20.6 points) and KOOS ΔLSmeans from baseline to 24 months posttreatment (M-ACI versus MFX: 36.9 versus 26.9 points). Treatment contrasts in KOOS ΔLSmeans from baseline indicated statistical significance in favor of M-ACI from 3 to 24 months posttreatment (P = .0026). Significant and clinically meaningful differences in favor of M-ACI at 24 months were also found regarding International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score ΔLSmeans from baseline (37.8 versus 30.4 points; P = .0334), KOOS responder rates at 24 months (≥10-point improvement from baseline; 94.4% versus 65.3%; P < .0001), IKDC responder rates at 24 months (>20.5-point improvement from baseline; 83.3% versus 61.1%, P = .0126) and MOCART (Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue) score in a subgroup of patients (LS means, 86.9 versus 69.1; P = .0096).ConclusionIn this exploratory analysis, M-ACI using an in situ crosslinked hydrogel demonstrated superior clinical and structural (MOCART) 24-month outcomes compared with MFx in patients with knee cartilage defects.

Project description:BackgroundReherniation rates following lumbar discectomy are low for most patients; however, patients with a large defect in the annulus fibrosis have a significantly higher risk of recurrence. Previous results from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that the implantation of a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) during discectomy surgery lowered the risk of symptomatic reherniation and reoperation over one year with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to discectomy alone.ObjectiveThe objective of this prospective, post-market, historically controlled study was to evaluate the use of an ACD during discectomy, and to confirm the results of the RCT that was used to establish regulatory approval in the United States.MethodsIn this post-market study, all patients (N = 55) received discectomy surgery with a bone-anchored ACD. The comparison population was patients enrolled in the RCT study who had discectomy with an ACD (N = 262) or discectomy alone (N = 272). All other eligibility criteria, surgical technique, device characteristics, and follow-up methodology were comparable between studies. Endpoints included rate of symptomatic reherniation or reoperation, SAEs, and patient-reported measures of disability, pain, and quality of life.ResultsFifty-five patients received ACD implants at 12 sites between May 2020 and February 2021. In the previous RCT, 272 control patients had discectomy surgery alone (RCT-Control), and 262 patients had discectomy surgery with an ACD implant (RCT-ACD). Baseline characteristics across groups were typical of the overall population undergoing lumbar discectomy. The proportion of patients who experienced reherniation and/or reoperation was significantly lower in the ACD group compared to RCT-ACD and RCT-Control groups (p < 0.05). In the ACD study, the one-year rate of symptomatic reherniation was 3.7%, compared to 8.5% in the RCT-ACD group and 17.0% in the RCT-Control group. In the ACD group, the risk of reoperation was 5.5%, compared to 6.5% in the RCT-ACD group and 12.5% in the RCT-Control group. There were no device-related SAEs or device integrity failures in the ACD, and there were clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported measures of disability, pain, and quality of life.ConclusionIn this post-market study of bone-anchored ACD in patients with large annular defects, rates of symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, and SAEs were all low. Compared to the RCT, the post-market ACD study demonstrated lower rates of reherniation and/or reoperation and measures of back pain one-year post-surgery.

Project description:Background: Lumbar discectomy is a common surgical procedure in middle-aged adults. However, outcomes of lumbar discectomy among older adults are unclear. Methods: Lumbar discectomy patients with an annular defect ≥6 mm width were randomized to receive additional implantation with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD, n=272) or no additional implantation (controls, n=278). Over 3 years follow-up, main outcomes were symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, and the percentage of patients who achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) without a reoperation for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score, and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Results were compared between older (≥60 years) and younger (<60 years) patients. We additionally analyzed data from two postmarket ACD registries to determine consistency of outcomes between the randomized trial and postmarket, real-world results. Results: Among all patients, older patients suffered from crippling or bed-bound preoperative disability more frequently than younger patients (57.9% vs 39.1%, p=0.03). Among controls, female sex, higher preoperative ODI, and current smoking status, but not age, were associated with greater risk of reherniation and reoperation. Compared to controls, the ACD group had lower risk of symptomatic reherniation (HR=0.45, p<0.001) and reoperation (HR=0.54, p=0.008), with risk reductions comparable in older vs younger patients. The percentage of patients achieving the MCID without a reoperation was higher in the ACD group for leg pain (81% vs 72%, p=0.04), ODI (82% vs 73%, p=0.03), PCS (85% vs 75%, p=0.01), and MCS (59% vs 46%, p=0.007), and this benefit was comparable in older versus younger patients. Comparable benefits in older patients were observed in the postmarket ACD registries. Conclusion: Outcomes with lumbar discectomy and additional bone-anchored ACD are superior to lumbar discectomy alone. Older patients derived similar benefits with additional bone-anchored ACD implantation as younger patients.

Project description:Background: The scope of existing annular closure device (ACD) studies examining long-term follow-up data is limited. There is a paucity of studies that report and analyze recent outcomes data following ACD use. Purpose: We sought to summarize the available long-term follow-up data on postoperative outcomes of the Barricaid (Intrinsic Therapeutics) ACD. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the PubMed, Cochrane, and OVID databases were searched to identify studies after 2015 that include direct evaluation of an ACD in a clinical context with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up and inclusion of reherniation and complication rates, while excluding case reports, reviews, and meta-analyses. Outcome measures included patient demographics, study characteristics, surgical technique, defect measurement technique, perioperative statistics, radiographic assessments, complications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and postoperative outcomes. Results: Five studies-2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 retrospective studies, and 1 prospective cohort study-were included. Symptomatic reherniation rates in the ACD populations ranged from 3% to 18.8%. Two studies found that control groups herniate significantly more than their ACD counterparts (ACD 18.8% vs non-ACD 31.6% and ACD 3.33% vs non-ACD 20.0%). No significant differences were found in reoperation rates. Of the 4 studies that reported PROMs data, all observed relative improvement in each cohort, although pooled analysis did not find significant differences between ACD and non-ACD groups for Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale-leg pain at 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: For patients undergoing diskectomy for lumbar disk herniation, the Barricaid device is effective in reducing symptomatic reherniation but does not appear to alter postoperative PROMs or reoperation rates. Surgeons must consider that device-related complications can occur.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the postoperative complications, perioperative course, and survival among patients from the multicentric Spanish Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery Group database who received video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy or video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.MethodsFrom December 2016 to March 2018, a total of 2250 patients were collected from 33 centers. Overall analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 2070; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 180) and propensity score-matched adjusted analysis (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy = 97; video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy = 97) were performed to compare postoperative results. Kaplan-Meier and competing risks method were used to compare survival.ResultsIn the overall analysis, video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy showed a lower incidence of respiratory complications (relative risk, 0.56; confidence interval, 0.37-0.83; P = .002), lower postoperative prolonged air leak (relative risk, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.78; P = .003), and shorter median postoperative stay (4.8 vs 6.2 days; P = .004) than video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy. After propensity score-matched analysis, prolonged air leak remained significantly lower in video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.89; P = .02). Kaplan-Meier and competing risk curves showed no differences during the 3-year follow-up (median follow-up in months: 24.4; interquartile range, 20.8-28.3) in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.7; P = .2), tumor progression-related mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.57; P = .2), and disease-free survival (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.51; P = .4) between groups.ConclusionsVideo-assisted thoracic surgery segmentectomy showed results similar to lobectomy in terms of postoperative outcomes and midterm survival. In addition, a lower incidence of prolonged air leak was found in patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery anatomic segmentectomy.

Dataset Information

Does Patient Blinding Influence Clinical Outcomes After Annular Closure Device Implantation? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does Patient Blinding Influence Clinical Outcomes After Annular Closure Device Implantation? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets