The Purpose of This Study is to Evaluate Safety and Performance of the V-STRUT© Transpedicular Vertebral System

NCT03580434 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: SPINE0
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 9
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 3

Brief Summary

The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the safety and performance of the V-STRUT© Transpedicular Vertebral System for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures of the thoracic or lumbar spine.

Conditions

Vertebral Compression Fracture

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Difficulties of the procedure [feasibility of the procedure]

  Record difficulties experienced by surgeons during the procedure: each individual step of the procedure will be recorded and quoted by practitioners as very easy, easy, difficult or very difficult.

  per-operative

• Type of anaesthesia [feasibility of the procedure]

  Record the type of anaesthesia as GA (General Anaesthesia), local anaesthesia + sedation, or other.

  per-operative

• Cement quantity injected [feasibility of the procedure]

  Record cement quantity injected in the vertebral body, in cc (cubic centimeter).

  per-operative

• Operating time [feasibility of the procedure]

  Measuring the duration of the surgical procedures.

  per-operative

• Hospitalisation stay [feasibility of the procedure]

  Measuring the duration of the hospitalisation stay.

  per-operative and immediate post-op

Secondary Outcomes (7)

• Pain [performance of the device]

  pre- operative, immediate post-op, at 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

• Frequencies of ADEs and SADEs [safety of the device]

  per- operative, immediate post-op, at 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

• Rates of cement leakage [safety of the device]

  Per-operative, immediate post-op, at 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

• Rates of fractures [safety of the device]

  Per-operative, immediate post-op, at 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

• Functional score [safety of the device]

  per-operative, immediate post-op, at 2 months, 6 months and 12 months.

Study Arms (1)

V-STRUT

EXPERIMENTAL

V-STRUT implantation

Device: V-STRUT

Interventions

V-STRUT DEVICE

Minimally invasive implantation of V-STRUT

V-STRUT

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Adult male and female patients
• Treatment of vertebral compression fracture (type A.1, some A.2 and rarely A.3 Magerl classification)
• Due to osteoporosis or tumorous lesions,
• Located in the thoracic and/or lumbar spine from T9 to L5.
• One unique vertebral fracture to be treated with the device
• Pain \> 4
• ASA \> 5
• For osteoporotic patient, fail in conservative treatment (8 days of antalgic medication Level III) and recent fracture (less than 6 weeks).

You may not qualify if:

• Unstable fractures or neoplasms with posterior involvement
• Nonmobile fractures
• Damages of the pedicles or posterior wall
• Less than one third of the original vertebral body height remaining
• Spinal canal stenosis (\>20%)
• Neurologic signs or symptoms related to the compression fracture or impeding pathological fracture
• Patient clearly improving on conservative treatment
• Pregnancy, breastfeeding
• Any contra-indication / allergy to implant material or cement
• Any previous surgical treatment (material or cement) in the targeted vertebra
• Systemic infection or infection located in the spine
• Any medical condition including but not limited to anaemia, coagulation disorders, fibromyalgia, algoneurodystrophy, Paget's disease, uncontrolled diabetes that would preclude the patient from having surgery or would impede the benefit of surgery
• Patient under the age of majority

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Hyprevention: lead

Study Sites (3)

Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine

Bordeaux, France

Location

APHP - Hôpital Tenon

Paris, 75020, France

Location

Institut Gustave Roussy

Villejuif, France

Location

Related Publications (27)

• Cornelis FH, Tselikas L, Carteret T, Lapuyade B, De Baere T, Le Huec JC, Deschamps F. Percutaneous internal fixation with Y-STRUT(R) device to prevent both osteoporotic and pathological hip fractures: a prospective pilot study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Feb 9;12(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0514-2.

  PMID: 28183325 BACKGROUND

• Cornelis FH, Deschamps F. Augmented osteoplasty for proximal femur consolidation in cancer patients: Biomechanical considerations and techniques. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017 Sep;98(9):645-650. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2017.06.014. Epub 2017 Jul 27.

  PMID: 28757428 BACKGROUND

• Cornelis FH, Tselikas L, Carteret T, Lapuyade B, De Baere T, Cabane V, Rodrigues L, Maas C, Deschamps F. A Novel Implant for the Prophylactic Treatment of Impending Pathological Fractures of the Proximal Femur: Results from a Prospective, First-in-Man Study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Jul;40(7):1070-1076. doi: 10.1007/s00270-017-1613-5. Epub 2017 Feb 23.

  PMID: 28233056 BACKGROUND

• Szpalski M,Le Huec JC, Jayankura M, Reynders P, Maas C(2017) Contralateral Prophylactic Reinforcement in Case of First Low-Energy Hip Fracture: First-in-Man Clinical Data of a New Percutaneous Internal Fixation Device. J Osteopor Phys Act 5:202. doi:10.4172/2329-9509.100020

  BACKGROUND

• Upasani VV, Robertson C, Lee D, Tomlinson T, Mahar AT. Biomechanical comparison of kyphoplasty versus a titanium mesh implant with cement for stabilization of vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Sep 1;35(19):1783-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b7cc5d.

  PMID: 20098352 BACKGROUND

• Ghofrani H, Nunn T, Robertson C, Mahar A, Lee Y, Garfin S. An evaluation of fracture stabilization comparing kyphoplasty and titanium mesh repair techniques for vertebral compression fractures: is bone cement necessary? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jul 15;35(16):E768-73. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d260bf.

  PMID: 20634659 BACKGROUND

• Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Jasper LE. Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of hydroxyapatite and polymethylmethacrylate cements for use with vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Nov-Dec;23(10):1647-51.

  PMID: 12427616 BACKGROUND

• Rodrigues DC, Ordway NR, Ma CR, Fayyazi AH, Hasenwinkel JM. An ex vivo exothermal and mechanical evaluation of two-solution bone cements in vertebroplasty. Spine J. 2011 May;11(5):432-9. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.012. Epub 2011 Apr 11.

  PMID: 21481652 BACKGROUND

• Tutton SM, Pflugmacher R, Davidian M, Beall DP, Facchini FR, Garfin SR. KAST Study: The Kiva System As a Vertebral Augmentation Treatment-A Safety and Effectiveness Trial: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial Comparing the Kiva System With Balloon Kyphoplasty in Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):865-75. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000906.

  PMID: 25822543 BACKGROUND

• Dohm M, Black CM, Dacre A, Tillman JB, Fueredi G; KAVIAR investigators. A randomized trial comparing balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures due to osteoporosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Dec;35(12):2227-36. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4127. Epub 2014 Oct 9.

  PMID: 25300981 BACKGROUND

• Olivarez LM, Dipp JM, Escamilla RF, Bajares G, Perez A, Stubbs HA, Block JE. Vertebral augmentation treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures with the Kiva VCF Treatment System. SAS J. 2011 Dec 1;5(4):114-9. doi: 10.1016/j.esas.2011.06.001. eCollection 2011.

  PMID: 25802677 BACKGROUND

• Wang CH, Ma JZ, Zhang CC, Nie L. Comparison of high-viscosity cement vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician. 2015 Mar-Apr;18(2):E187-94.

  PMID: 25794218 BACKGROUND

• Li X, Yang H, Tang T, Qian Z, Chen L, Zhang Z. Comparison of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: twelve-month follow-up in a prospective nonrandomized comparative study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012 May;25(3):142-9. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318213c113.

  PMID: 21423053 BACKGROUND

• Deschamps F, de Baere T. Cementoplasty of bone metastases. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012 Sep;93(9):685-689. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2012.06.009. Epub 2012 Aug 11.

  PMID: 22889809 BACKGROUND

• Kobayashi N, Numaguchi Y, Fuwa S, Uemura A, Matsusako M, Okajima Y, Ishiyama M, Takahashi O. Prophylactic vertebroplasty: cement injection into non-fractured vertebral bodies during percutaneous vertebroplasty. Acad Radiol. 2009 Feb;16(2):136-43. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.05.005.

  PMID: 19124098 BACKGROUND

• Otten LA, Bornemnn R, Jansen TR, Kabir K, Pennekamp PH, Wirtz DC, Stuwe B, Pflugmacher R. Comparison of balloon kyphoplasty with the new Kiva(R) VCF system for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician. 2013 Sep-Oct;16(5):E505-12.

  PMID: 24077200 BACKGROUND

• Yang EZ, Xu JG, Huang GZ, Xiao WZ, Liu XK, Zeng BF, Lian XF. Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment in Aged Patients With Acute Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41(8):653-60. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001298.

  PMID: 26630417 BACKGROUND

• Korovessis P, Vardakastanis K, Repantis T, Vitsas V. Balloon kyphoplasty versus KIVA vertebral augmentation--comparison of 2 techniques for osteoporotic vertebral body fractures: a prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 15;38(4):292-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826b3aef.

  PMID: 23407406 BACKGROUND

• Shindle MK, Gardner MJ, Koob J, Bukata S, Cabin JA, Lane JM. Vertebral height restoration in osteoporotic compression fractures: kyphoplasty balloon tamp is superior to postural correction alone. Osteoporos Int. 2006 Dec;17(12):1815-9. doi: 10.1007/s00198-006-0195-x. Epub 2006 Sep 16.

  PMID: 16983458 BACKGROUND

• Liu JT, Li CS, Chang CS, Liao WJ. Long-term follow-up study of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture treated using balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Jul;23(1):94-8. doi: 10.3171/2014.11.SPINE14579. Epub 2015 Apr 17.

  PMID: 25884343 BACKGROUND

• Evans AJ, Kip KE, Brinjikji W, Layton KF, Jensen ML, Gaughen JR, Kallmes DF. Randomized controlled trial of vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Jul;8(7):756-63. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011811. Epub 2015 Jun 24.

  PMID: 26109687 BACKGROUND

• Chen D, An ZQ, Song S, Tang JF, Qin H. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with conservative treatment in patients with chronic painful osteoporotic spinal fractures. J Clin Neurosci. 2014 Mar;21(3):473-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.05.017. Epub 2013 Aug 8.

  PMID: 24315046 BACKGROUND

• Comstock BA, Sitlani CM, Jarvik JG, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Kallmes DF. Investigational vertebroplasty safety and efficacy trial (INVEST): patient-reported outcomes through 1 year. Radiology. 2013 Oct;269(1):224-31. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13120821. Epub 2013 May 21.

  PMID: 23696683 BACKGROUND

• Tan HY, Wang LM, Zhao L, Liu YL, Song RP. A prospective study of percutaneous vertebroplasty for chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Pain Res Manag. 2015 Jan-Feb;20(1):e8-e11. doi: 10.1155/2015/181487. Epub 2014 Jun 19.

  PMID: 24945287 BACKGROUND

• Korovessis P, Repantis T, Miller LE, Block JE. Initial clinical experience with a novel vertebral augmentation system for treatment of symptomatic vertebral compression fractures: a case series of 26 consecutive patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Sep 22;12:206. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-206.

  PMID: 21939548 BACKGROUND

• Yi X, Lu H, Tian F, Wang Y, Li C, Liu H, Liu X, Li H. Recompression in new levels after percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty compared with conservative treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Jan;134(1):21-30. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1886-3. Epub 2013 Nov 28.

  PMID: 24287674 BACKGROUND

• Vogl TJ, Pflugmacher R, Hierholzer J, Stender G, Gounis M, Wakhloo A, Fiebig C, Hammerstingl R. Cement directed kyphoplasty reduces cement leakage as compared with vertebroplasty: results of a controlled, randomized trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Sep 15;38(20):1730-6. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a14d15.

  PMID: 23804157 BACKGROUND

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: INDUSTRY
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: June 4, 2018
• First Posted: July 9, 2018
• Study Start: February 1, 2019
• Primary Completion: August 1, 2022
• Study Completion: August 1, 2022
• Last Updated: August 2, 2022

Record last verified: 2022-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share

Locations

FR (3)