Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=40 Randomized Triple-blind Treatment

Comparative Study of Sham Versus Mild® Procedure in Patients Diagnosed With Symptomatic Lumbar Central Canal Stenosis

Lumbar Spine Stenosis Central Canal

Enrolled (actual)
40
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jul 2013
Primary outcome: Primary: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) <=4 — 11; 2 participants

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Percutaneous Lumbar Decompression (Device); Sham lumbar decompression (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Napa Pain Institute
Primary completion
Oct 2011

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) <=4
9; 5; 12; 5
PRIMARY
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) <=4
9; 5; 12; 5
PRIMARY
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Mean Improvement
2.3; 2.2

Summary

This is a single-center, randomized, prospective, double-blind, clinical study to assess the clinical application and outcomes with mild® devices versus sham in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe central canal spinal stenosis. Sham patients were eligible to choose to cross-over and have the actual decompression procedure after week 6 exam.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Symptomatic and lumbar spine stenosis (LSS) primarily caused by dorsal element hypertrophy.
  • Prior failure of conservative therapy and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Score of >20%.
  • Radiologic evidence of LSS, ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (typically > 2.5mm)confirmed by pre op MRI and/or CT.
  • Central canal cross sectional area clearly reduced per MRI/CT report.
  • If present, anterior listhesis ≤ 5.0mm (preferred) and stable.
  • Able to walk at least 10 feet unaided before being limited by pain.
  • Available to complete 26 weeks of follow-up.
  • A signed Informed consent Form is obtained from the subject.
  • Adults at least 18 years of age.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Prior surgery at intended treatment level.
  • History of recent spinal fractures with concurrent pain symptoms as determined by the Investigator.
  • Disabling back or leg pain from causes other than LSS (e.g. acute compression fracture, metabolic neuropathy, or vascular claudication symptoms, etc.).
  • Disk protrusion or osteophyte formation severe enough to confound study outcome.
  • Facet hypertrophy severe enough to confound study outcome.
  • Bleeding disorders and/or current use of anti-coagulants.
  • Use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) within five days of treatment.
  • Epidural steroid administration within prior 3 weeks(of procedure or sham)
  • Inability of the subject to lie prone for any reason with anesthesia support (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), obesity, etc.).
  • Metabolic wound healing pathologies deemed by Investigator to compromise study outcome.
  • Dementia and/or inability to give informed consent.
  • Pregnancy and/or breastfeeding.
  • On Workman's Compensation or considering litigation associated with back pain.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01129921). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search