Laminectomy or X-Stop – Which operation is more cost-effective for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

ISRCTN ISRCTN88702314
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN88702314
Secondary identifying numbers 07/X01
Submission date
06/05/2008
Registration date
04/06/2008
Last edited
03/02/2021
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Circulatory System
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Background and study aims
Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition of the spine affecting mainly the older population. It causes back pain and pain down the legs and impairs mobility, therefore it has a negative impact on the individual’s quality of life. An operation can help to alleviate some of these symptoms. Laminectomy is the standard operation that is offered however this is quite invasive and not always successful. It also has a considerable risk of complications. A new device called X-stop is an implant that can be inserted in between the bones of the spine to achieve the same effect or similar to a laminectomy. The latter is a relatively minor operation where the risk of complications is less, however, the device itself is very expensive and is not proven to be better than a laminectomy. The aim of the study is to find out which operation results in a better quality of life and which one is more cost-effective.

Who can participate?
Adult patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

What does the study involve?
Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis who are candidates for surgery and who agree to participate in the trial are randomly allocated to either a Laminectomy or X-Stop operation. They are asked to complete questionnaires before and after surgery and are followed up for two years.

What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Patients follow normal NHS pathways and as such there are no benefits to participate in the trial. The follow up for the trial is two years however, and normally patients would be discharged before that. Therefore, participants in the trial are likely to get longer follow up than usual. Participation is voluntary and patients may withdraw from the study at any point. Patients who agree to participate are unable to choose which operation they will have. Also they are asked to complete several questionnaires prior to surgery and again at 6, 12 and 24 months post operatively which wouldn’t be required outside the trial.

Where is the study run from?
1. The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (UK)
2. St George’s Hospital (UK)
3. Hurstwood Park Neuroscience centre (UK)

When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
April 2008 yo August 2017

Who is funding the study?
Kyphon Europe (Belgium)

Who is the main contact?
Mr David Choi
david.choi@uclh.nhs.uk

Contact information

Mr David Choi
Scientific

Department of Neurosurgery
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery
Queen Square
London
WC1N 3BG
United Kingdom

Phone +44 845 155 5000
Email david.choi@uclh.nhs.uk

Study information

Study designMulticentre prospective randomised controlled trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Participant information sheet Not available in web format, please use the contact details below to request a patient information sheet
Scientific titleCost effectiveness and quality of life after treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X-STOP® Interspinous Process Distraction (IPD) device or laminectomy: a prospective randomised trial
Study acronymCELAX - Cost Effectiveness of lumbar LAminectomy versus X-STOP®
Study objectivesNull hypothesis: There is no difference in cost effectiveness, clinical efficacy, quality of life and safety of the X-STOP® device compared to that of conventional lumbar decompressive surgery.
Ethics approval(s)Charing Cross Research Ethics Committee, 01/04/2008, ref: 08/H0711/12
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedNeurogenic intermittent claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis
InterventionParticipants will be randomly allocated to the one of two treatment groups. A five block randomisation process will be used and patients are randomised the day before surgery.

Lumbar laminectomy: Participants receive a standard surgical decompression where the laminae at the affected level are removed. The operating surgeon’s discretion is used to determine the extent of the decompression including undercutting of the facet joints and whether a drain is required.

X-STOP® interspinous distractor: Patients have the device inserted at the affected level.

Participants in both groups complete follow up questionnaires post-operatively, and after six months and one and two years.
Intervention typeDevice
Pharmaceutical study type(s)
PhaseNot Applicable
Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s)
Primary outcome measureCost of implanting X-stop interspinous distractor compared to conventional surgical decompression
Secondary outcome measuresThe following will be assessed preoperatively, on discharge, at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months:
1. Quality of life, assessed by the EQ-5D, 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36) and Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire
2. Clinical efficacy, assessed by the Zucher Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS)
3. Safety (any complication either perioperatively or postoperatively)
Overall study start date01/04/2008
Completion date01/08/2017

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
Upper age limit80 Years
SexBoth
Target number of participants110 (55 in each treatment group)
Total final enrolment47
Key inclusion criteria1. Age: 18-80
2. Sex: males and non-pregnant females
3. Chronic leg pain with or without back pain of greater than 6 months duration, partially or completely relieved by adopting flexed posture and who are suitable candidates for posterior lumbar surgery
4. Those who have completed at least 6 months of conservative treatment without obtaining adequate symptomatic relief
5. Degenerative changes at one or two adjacent levels between L1-S1 confirmed by X-ray, computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan
Key exclusion criteria1. Fixed motor deficit
2. Active infection or metastatic disease
3. Degenerative spondylolisthesis >= Meyerding Grade 2
4. Known allergy to implant materials
5. Severe osteoporosis or rheumatoid arthritis
6. Cauda equina syndrome
Date of first enrolment11/12/2008
Date of final enrolment01/02/2014

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • England
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centres

The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery
Queen Square
London
WC1N 3BG
United Kingdom
St George’s Hospital
Blackshaw Road
London
SW17 0QT
United Kingdom
Hurstwood Park Neuroscience centre
Princess Royal Hospital
Hayward’s Heath
RH16 4EX
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UK)
Hospital/treatment centre

c/o Mr Philip Diamond
Research and Development Department
1st Floor
Maple House
149 Tottenham Court Road
London
W1T 7NF
England
United Kingdom

Phone +44 845 155 5000
Email philip.diamond@uclh.nhs.uk
Website http://www.uclh.nhs.uk
ROR logo "ROR" https://ror.org/042fqyp44

Funders

Funder type

Industry

Kyphon Europe (Belgium)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date01/08/2018
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareYes
IPD sharing plan summaryAvailable on request
Publication and dissemination planPlanned publication in a per reviewed journal.
IPD sharing planThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are/will be available upon request from Anouk Bord (anouk.borg@nhs.net)

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 02/02/2021 03/02/2021 Yes No

Editorial Notes

03/02/2021: Publication reference and total final enrolment added.
18/04/2017: The following changes have been made to the record:
1. The public title, interventions, trial participating centres, publication and dissemination plan and IPD Sharing plan have been added.
2. The overall trial dates have been updated from 01/06/2008 - 01/06/2011 to 01/04/2008 - 01/08/2017 and the recruitment dates have been updated from 01/06/2008 - 01/06/2011 to 11/12/2008 - 01/02/2014.
12/04/2017: No publications found in PubMed, verifying study status with principal investigator