Clinical Research Directory

Opioid Free and Opioid Based Anesthesia in Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery

This prospective, observational, non-randomized clinical study aims to evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative effects of opioid-free multimodal anesthesia compared with opioid-containing anesthesia methods in adult patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery. Patients will be managed according to routine clinical practice and assigned to one of three groups based on the analgesic strategy used by the attending anesthesiologist: (1) opioid-free anesthesia using multimodal agents and/or erector spinae plane (ESP) block; (2) ESP block plus intraoperative opioids; or (3) opioid-based anesthesia without regional blocks. The primary objective is to compare postoperative pain control and opioid requirements within the first 48 hours after surgery. Secondary objectives include evaluating opioid-related side effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, constipation, delayed mobilization, urinary retention, and postoperative complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Standard postoperative analgesia, including intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), acetaminophen, and NSAIDs, will be provided for all patients. The study aims to determine whether an opioid-free multimodal analgesic approach can reduce opioid consumption and related adverse effects while maintaining adequate analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.

Evidence For Fusion In Spine With Orthoss®

This study aims to evaluate the performance and safety of the Orthoss® as a bone graft extender in lumbar spondylodesis involving 1-2 levels (L4-L5 and/or L5-S1).

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain

Background Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is the leading cause of lower back pain and disability, which prevalence increasing with age. When conservative treatment fails, surgical methods of spinal fusion are employed. Minimally invasive techniques, including minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF), have well-documented advantages over traditional open transforaminal interbody fusion (open-TLIF). However, data comparing these two minimally invasive methods in treating DDD are minimal and sometimes contradictory. I am running a few minutes late; my previous meeting is running over. Methods This is a prospective, randomized, partially blinded, two-arm trial aiming to compare the outcomes, complications, and treatment costs of MIS-TLIF and MIDLIF in patients with discogenic low back pain. A total of 100 adult patients with lumbosacral spine pain and radicular symptoms, unresponsive to conservative treatment for over one year, will be enrolled. Patients will be randomized (1:1) into two arms: MIS-TLIF (control, n=50) and MIDLIF (intervention, n=50), with a 12-month follow-up. Inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years and discopathy at one or two levels requiring interbody stabilization. Exclusion criteria include multilevel pathology, spinal deformities, and pain causes other than degenerative disease. Primary endpoints assess pain (VAS, NRS scales), disability (COMI, ODI questionnaires), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. Secondary endpoints include complication rates (nerve root damage, infections), costs (hospitalization, implants), length of hospital stay, procedure duration, blood loss, morphometric parameters (intervertebral space height), and adjacent segment disease based on imaging studies (MRI, CT, X-ray). Data analysis uses parametric/non-parametric tests (e.g., t-test, Mann-Whitney) in the R software. The trial adheres to the Helsinki Declaration, with ethics approval (no. 112/2024). Discussion Data on the comparison of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating DDD are minimal and inconsistent. Some reports have advantaged MIDLIF in shorter operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and reduced hospital stays, while others favor MIS-TLIF. This trial addresses these gaps by providing high-quality evidence on clinical superiority, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes compering MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. There is a high need for a high-quality, prospective study to examine this problem.

The Role of Cutibacterium Acnes in the Development of Degenerative Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Disease

The goal of this study is to clarify the role of the bacterium Cutibacterium acnes in the development of degenerative disc disease in patients with lumbar disc herniation who underwent microdiscectomy as part of their regular medical care.

Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity at at Least Five Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement

Lumbosciatica is a very prevalent pathology. When conservative treatments fail, surgery should be considered. The traditional surgical treatment is lumbar arthrodesis. The vast majority of patients who undergo spinal fusion cannot return to their same job and a good number of them never work again. Another form of treatment for lumbosciatica is the implantation of a lumbar disc prosthesis. This technique preserves the mobility of the lumbar area that has been operated on. This allows for a greater return to work and a higher percentage of those who return to the same job. This study aims to quantify how many of the patients who have had a lumbar disc prosthesis implanted in the last twenty years have returned to their same job, how many have had to change their jobs, and how many have not returned to work and are now totally or completely disabled from work.