4 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study examining functional improvement in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients with neurogenic claudication who are treated with the MILD procedure plus conventional medical management (CMM) compared to those treated with CMM alone, as the control. Subjects in the control group are able to crossover and receive MILD after completion of 12-month follow-up. The study will provide objective functional improvement data for patients treated with the mild Procedure as first-line therapy in a real-world setting.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Composite Clinical Success of the study group receiving the Superion® IDS is not inferior to the success rate observed in the study group treated by direct decompression at 60 months follow-up. Secondarily, the trial is intended to establish that Composite Clinical Success of the study group receiving the Superion® IDS at 24 months is not inferior to the success rate observed at 24 months in patients treated with the Superion® IDS in the original IDE trial. Thirdly, the trial is intended to establish that Composite Clinical Success of the population receiving the Superion® IDS in this trial at 24 months is not inferior to the success rate observed at 24 months in patients treated with direct decompression.
Study Objective: To compare patient outcomes following treatment with either the MILD procedure or epidural steroid injections (ESIs) in patients with painful lumbar spinal stenosis exhibiting neurogenic claudication and having verified ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as a contributing factor.
The most common forms of injection used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients with neurogenic claudication (NC) are the caudal and inter-laminar epidural injections of anesthetic and steroid. Unilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESI) are also used to alleviate patients' symptoms of NC from DLSS, particularly in patients whose level of stenosis is L4-5 or higher. However, these unilateral injections do not cross the midline, so in cases of lower extremity pain and symptoms on both sides, a bilateral TESI would probably be more beneficial. To date, there have not been any well designed prospective studies to determine the effectiveness of bilateral TESI below the level of stenosis in DLSS patients with NC. Therefore, the goal of this prospective, non-randomized case-series outcome study is to evaluate the effectiveness of BTESI in alleviating symptoms of NC, as well as improving function in patients with DLSS. The hypothesis is that BTESI at the level below the most stenotic segment of the central canal of the lumbar spine decreases symptoms of NC and improves function in patients with DLSS.