Spinal FusionNCT03407560
Use of the Bone Substitute SintLife® in Vertebral Arthrodesis Procedures. A Pilot Study.
A study testing SintLife in people with Spinal Fusion, run by Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
This pilot study is to evaluate the potential effectiveness of bone substitute SintLife within the spinal surgery in spinal stabilization applications for degenerative diseases. In particular, the investigators propose to evaluate: the ability of bone regeneration/ fusion, defined as the presence of trabecular bone… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Spinal Fusion
- What is being tested?
- SintLife
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 31 Mar 2017to 31 Mar 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients who have provided consent to the processing of personal data;
- Patients over the age of 18;
- Patients who require posterolateral fusion of lumbosacral tract (L1- S1);
- Patients suffering from traumatic and degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease;
- Patients who agree to participate in the program of visits required by the Protocol.
Who cannot join
- Patients affected by:
- systemic or localized infection
- inflammatory or autoimmune disease
- hypercalcemia
- coagulation disorders
- metabolic disorders
Show all 16Show fewer
- insulin dependent diabetes
- alterations or complications of thyroid function
- allergy to calcium phosphate
- declared allergies to medications and / or medical device
- tumor diseases and / or infectious diseases of the spine
- active neoplasia
- Patients who abuse of alcohol or drugs
- Patients in the alleged pregnancy or confirmed
- Patients on medication that causes abnormal bone regeneration (eg chemotherapy)
- Already operated patients (revision surgery)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
This pilot study is to evaluate the potential effectiveness of bone substitute SintLife within the spinal surgery in spinal stabilization applications for degenerative diseases.
In particular, the investigators propose to evaluate:
Read more
- the ability of bone regeneration/ fusion, defined as the presence of trabecular bone continuous bridge and absence of radiolucent lines, verified by diagnostic imaging in accordance with the Brantigan scale;
- the patient's state of health, evaluated through the comparison of the functional-symptom pattern between the pre- and post-operative phases, verified by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and EuroQol (EQ-5D);
- the safety of the medical device, evaluated through the impact of any adverse events, complications, unexpected reactions, accidents.
STUDY DESIGN This collection of clinical data is set up as pilot study post-marketing. In the study will be included all consecutive patients who require spinal fusion surgery, in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria after signing the informed consent. Patients will be treated and followed postoperatively according to the normal clinical, surgical and therapeutic practice, in place at the Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute of Bologna.
The total duration of data collection is 36 months:
- the stage of patient enrollment is 18 months from the date of approval of the study by the Ethics Committee of the center;
- the phase of post-operative monitoring is 18 months, with planned at 6, 12 and 18 months follow-up (± 15 days before scheduled date).
Read the detailed description
- INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE The vertebral arthrodesis is one of the surgical procedures most used for the treatment of deformities, trauma and degenerative diseases with instability of the spine (Rajaee et al., 2012; Yoshihara and Yoneoka, 2015). Using bone grafts and tools, such as metal rods and screws, this procedure creates a fusion between two or more adjacent vertebrae, in order to stabilize the spine. The success of fusion, intended as the neo-formation of trabecular bone radiographically detectable, may depend on the characteristics of the bone graft used and its properties as well as the surgical technique used. In the absence of autologous bone the biological process that leads to bone regeneration is characterized by three critical elements: the osteogenic potential, the osteoinductive factors, the osteoconductive scaffold. The ideal bone substitute possesses all three of these properties, combined with excellent compatibility and biological safety (Ludwig et al., 2000; Park et al., 2013). The local autologous bone harvested from the iliac crest has been and is still considered the "gold standard" in the treatment of spinal fusion. However, contraindications and potential complications associated with the use of autologous bone are well known (Dimar et al., 2009; Gruskay et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009; Miyazaki et al., 2009). In order to overcome these limitations, several alternatives have been developed, clinically tested and are today available on the market: growth factors (BMPs) (Carragee et al., 2011; Kannan et al., 2015), allogenic bone or heterologous ( Gupta et al., 2015; Park et al., 2013), demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and synthetic ceramic materials to name a few (Abdullah et al., 2011; Fischer et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2012) . Despite all of these materials have been extensively studied (Abdullah et al., 2011; Alsaleh et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2012; Miyazaki et al., 2009) the available data are often uneven in quality, type of study, assessments performed and conclusions reached (Hsu et al., 2012; Kannan et al., 2015; Miyazaki et al., 2009). The ceramic bone substitutes of synthetic origin (Nickoli and Hsu, 2014), such as collagen, tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (Dai and Jiang, 2008), calcium phosphate (CaP), calcium sulphate (CaS) and hydroxyapatite (HA), have been designed and developed as osteoconductive scaffolds with characteristics and properties very similar to those of human bone, able to support the regeneration and bone remodeling, and go into slow resorption (Alsaleh et al. , 2012; Gao et al., 2014; Hsu et al., 2012; Kaiser et al., 2014; Kho and Chen, 2008; Korovessis et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2009; Zhou and Lee, 2011) . Fin-Ceramica Faenza SpA is a company engaged in the development of innovative solutions in the field of bone regeneration, and one of the latest solutions in the field of bone substitutes proposes the use of hydroxyapatite-based ceramic composites, biomaterials biomimetic new generation (Blackbeard et al., 2013; Zhou and Lee, 2011). Among these biomaterials, SintLife is a bone substitute consisting of Mg-HA crystals nano (sintered at body temperature). pre-clinical and preliminary clinical data show Sintlife the safety of the product and support the ability to use it as a bone substitute for spinal fusion (Brodano Barbanti et al., 2015; Brodano et al., 2014; Manfrini et al., 2013).
- IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF MEDICAL DEVICE SintLife is an implantable medical device, not active, with bone substitute function. SintLife features reabsorbtion cell-mediated. SintLife is a bone substitute, in paste form, consisting of physiological saline (percentage to 46%) and nanocrystals of magnesium-substituted hydroxyapatite (Mg-HA). The Mg2 + ions are introduced within the crystalline cell of HA in the same position and percentage found in the human bone mineral phase. E 'was shown that the presence of Mg2 + deforms the structure of the HAS crystalline cell by making it unstable and biologically active, thus promoting bone formation, remodeling, and a rapid resorption mediated by the cells of the material. In addition, the Mg-HA actively interacts with the water molecules to quickly capture key proteins involved in osteogenesis. SintLife interacts with the cells that form bone and promotes the deposition of new bone tissue. Thanks to its specific chemical composition and biomimetics, the nanostructure and the surface properties, it is reabsorbed and remodeled by the action mobile phone in a physiologically appropriate time (6-18 months), remaining at the application site for the duration of growth and of maturation of new bone. During the remodeling phase, one can observe the resorbing activity of osteoclasts to work around the particles of the material, until a complete bone regeneration (5). SintLife is classified as a Class III medical device, is CE marked and complies with current European legislation on medical devices (EC Directive 93/42 / EC amended 2007/47 / EC).
- PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION This pilot study is to evaluate the potential effectiveness of bone substitute SintLife within the spinal surgery in spinal stabilization applications for degenerative diseases. In particular, the investigators aim to evaluate:
- the ability of bone regeneration / molding, defined as the presence of trabecular bone continuous bridge and absence of radiolucent lines, verified by diagnostic imaging (CT) and evaluated by means of in accordance with the scale Brantingan
- the patient's state of health, through the comparison of the functional-symptom pattern between pre- and post-operative, verified by the scores Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and EuroQol (EQ-5D);
- the safety of the medical device, through the impact of any adverse events, complications, unexpected reactions, accidents.
- STUDY DESIGN
4.1. Study characteristics This collection of clinical data is set up as post-market pilot study. It will be included in the study all consecutive patients who require spinal fusion surgery, in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria as voluntary and after signing the informed consent. Patients will be treated and followed postoperatively according to normal clinical practice, surgical and therapeutic in place at the Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute of Bologna.
The total duration of data collection is 36 months:
- the stage of patient enrollment is 18 months from the date of approval of the study by the Ethics Committee of the center;
- the phase of post-operative monitoring is 18 months, with planned at 6, 12 and 18 months follow-up (± 15 days before scheduled date).
In relation to the literature up to now produced, it is considered advisable to provide a post-operative control at 18 months since the chemical composition and biomimetic hydroxyapatite-magnesium shows remodeling and resorption, in a physiologically time comprised between 6 and 18 months, as well as for other reported in Section 4.
18 months is therefore the appropriate follow up to verify the medium term biomaterial behavior.
All data will be collected in a systematic, timely and uniform in a specific report form (SRD) paper.
4.2. Treatment directions Patients will be treated for degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease.
The fusion technique used will be the posterolateral arthrodesis, of one or more vertebral levels included in the lumbosacral (L1-S1), obtained by means of screws and bars, together with a preparation of the transverse processes treated with bone substitute in order to Sintlife obtain new bone formation and then spinal fusion. It also provided the ability to associate interbody posterolateral arthrodesis with the use of cage.
4.3. Visits plan During each visit (pre-operative, intra-operative, post-operative and follow-up) will be the responsibility of the surgeon to fill in the specific section in gathering data of every patient card.
The activities for each visit will be carried out as described below and as shown in the flow chart of visits (paragraph 2):
- preoperative examination (pre-op) - signing the informed consent, assessment of the criteria for inclusion - exclusion, recording demographic data and medical history, the SEA assessment and ODI;
- intervention - surgical report, TC, reports of potential adverse events intraoperative or immediate postoperative;
- follow-up visit at 6 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D;
- follow-up visit at 12 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D, TC;
- follow-up visit at 18 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D, TC.
- Conditions
- Spinal Fusion
- Being tested
- SintLife
- Keywords
- bone substitute, spinal fusion, lumbar spine disease
- Medical subject headings
- Spinal Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SintLifeDevice
Patients will be treated for degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease.
The fusion technique used will be the posterolateral arthrodesis of one or more vertebral levels included in the lumbosacral region (L1-S1), obtained by screws and bars, together with a preparation of the transverse processes treated with bone substitute in order to Sintlife obtain new bone formation and then spinal fusion. It is also possible to associate interbody fusion with the use of a cage.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| SintLife | Experimental | Use of SintLife putty as bone substitute for spinal fusion in lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases. Receives: Device: SintLife |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Spinal fusion
Brantigan fusion score to evaluate 5 levels of fusion
Measured: 18 months
Secondary outcomes (4)
Back pain assessed by VAS (Visual Analog Scale)
Patient self-administered questionnaire to evaluate VAS pain score. VAS is a pain scale ranging from 0 to 10 points (where 0 is the minimum value and 10 is the maximum value). A decrease in VAS score is expected at follow up.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Functional activity assessed by ODI (Oswestry Disability Index)
Patient self-administered questionnaire to evaluate the disability ODI score. ODI score is indicated as percentage ranging from 0% to 100%, where 0 corresponds to completely normal functional ability. A decrease in ODI score is expected at follow up.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Quality of life assessed by EQ-5D (Euro-QoL5D)
Patient self-administered questionnaire to evaluate the quality of life (EQ5-D). EQ5-D score range from 0 to 100 points, where 0 is the minimum value and 100 is the maximum value. An increase in EQ5-D score is expected at follow up.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Adverse events
Evaluation of early and late adverse events emerging after surgery
Measured: 18 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jan 2018
- Study start31 Mar 2017
- Primary completion19 Sep 2019
- Study completion31 Mar 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (26)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Spinal FusionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- Pilot study
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Giovanni Barbanti Brodano, MD, Principal investigator, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03407560
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CVOD.SintLife
- Status last verified
- Jan 2018
- First submitted
- 16 Jan 2018
- Last updated
- 11 May 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. The state of lumbar fusion extenders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Sep 15;36(20):E1328-34. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318209952b.
PubMed 21358468Alsaleh KA, Tougas CA, Roffey DM, Wai EK. Osteoconductive bone graft extenders in posterolateral thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jul 15;37(16):E993-1000. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182518859.
PubMed 22414999Barbanti Brodano G, Griffoni C, Zanotti B, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Ghermandi R, Boriani S. A post-market surveillance analysis of the safety of hydroxyapatite-derived products as bone graft extenders or substitutes for spine fusion. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Oct;19(19):3548-55.
PubMed 26502842Brodano GB, Giavaresi G, Lolli F, Salamanna F, Parrilli A, Martini L, Griffoni C, Greggi T, Arcangeli E, Pressato D, Boriani S, Fini M. Hydroxyapatite-Based Biomaterials Versus Autologous Bone Graft in Spinal Fusion: An In Vivo Animal Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 May 15;39(11):E661-E668. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000311.
PubMed 24718060Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011 Jun;11(6):471-91. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.023.
PubMed 21729796Dai LY, Jiang LS. Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of lumbar spine with beta-tricalcium phosphate versus autograft: a prospective, randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 20;33(12):1299-304. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181732a8e.
PubMed 18496340Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY. Two-year fusion and clinical outcomes in 224 patients treated with a single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion with iliac crest bone graft. Spine J. 2009 Nov;9(11):880-5. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.013. Epub 2009 May 17.
PubMed 19447682Fischer CR, Cassilly R, Cantor W, Edusei E, Hammouri Q, Errico T. A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jun;22(6):1423-35. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2718-4. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
PubMed 23440339Gao C, Deng Y, Feng P, Mao Z, Li P, Yang B, Deng J, Cao Y, Shuai C, Peng S. Current progress in bioactive ceramic scaffolds for bone repair and regeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2014 Mar 18;15(3):4714-32. doi: 10.3390/ijms15034714.
PubMed 24646912Gruskay JA, Basques BA, Bohl DD, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Short-term adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after iliac crest bone graft for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Sep 15;39(20):1718-24. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000476.
PubMed 24979140Gupta A, Kukkar N, Sharif K, Main BJ, Albers CE, El-Amin Iii SF. Bone graft substitutes for spine fusion: A brief review. World J Orthop. 2015 Jul 18;6(6):449-56. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i6.449. eCollection 2015 Jul 18.
PubMed 26191491Hsu WK, Nickoli MS, Wang JC, Lieberman JR, An HS, Yoon ST, Youssef JA, Brodke DS, McCullough CM. Improving the clinical evidence of bone graft substitute technology in lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2012 Dec;2(4):239-48. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1315454. Epub 2012 Oct 9.
PubMed 24353975Kaiser MG, Groff MW, Watters WC 3rd, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Wang JC, Dhall SS, Resnick DK. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 16: bone graft extenders and substitutes as an adjunct for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul;21(1):106-32. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14325.
PubMed 24980593Kannan A, Dodwad SN, Hsu WK. Biologics in spine arthrodesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Jun;28(5):163-70. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000281.
PubMed 25978141Kho VK, Chen WC. Posterolateral fusion using laminectomy bone chips in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Int Orthop. 2008 Feb;32(1):115-9. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0274-9. Epub 2006 Dec 19.
PubMed 17180686
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 May 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Use of the Bone Substitute SintLife® in Vertebral Arthrodesis Procedures. A Pilot Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03407560
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CVOD.SintLife
- Conditions
- Spinal Fusion
- Keywords
- bone substitute, spinal fusion, lumbar spine disease
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 31 Mar 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 19 Sep 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This pilot study is to evaluate the potential effectiveness of bone substitute SintLife within the spinal surgery in spinal stabilization applications for degenerative diseases.
In particular, the investigators propose to evaluate:
- the ability of bone regeneration/ fusion, defined as the presence of trabecular bone continuous bridge and absence of radiolucent lines, verified by diagnostic imaging in accordance with the Brantigan scale;
- the patient's state of health, evaluated through the comparison of the functional-symptom pattern between the pre- and post-operative phases, verified by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and EuroQol (EQ-5D);
- the safety of the medical device, evaluated through the impact of any adverse events, complications, unexpected reactions, accidents.
STUDY DESIGN This collection of clinical data is set up as pilot study post-marketing. In the study will be included all consecutive patients who require spinal fusion surgery, in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria after signing the informed consent. Patients will be treated and followed postoperatively according to the normal clinical, surgical and therapeutic practice, in place at the Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute of Bologna.
The total duration of data collection is 36 months:
- the stage of patient enrollment is 18 months from the date of approval of the study by the Ethics Committee of the center;
- the phase of post-operative monitoring is 18 months, with planned at 6, 12 and 18 months follow-up (± 15 days before scheduled date).
Detailed description
- INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE The vertebral arthrodesis is one of the surgical procedures most used for the treatment of deformities, trauma and degenerative diseases with instability of the spine (Rajaee et al., 2012; Yoshihara and Yoneoka, 2015). Using bone grafts and tools, such as metal rods and screws, this procedure creates a fusion between two or more adjacent vertebrae, in order to stabilize the spine. The success of fusion, intended as the neo-formation of trabecular bone radiographically detectable, may depend on the characteristics of the bone graft used and its properties as well as the surgical technique used. In the absence of autologous bone the biological process that leads to bone regeneration is characterized by three critical elements: the osteogenic potential, the osteoinductive factors, the osteoconductive scaffold. The ideal bone substitute possesses all three of these properties, combined with excellent compatibility and biological safety (Ludwig et al., 2000; Park et al., 2013). The local autologous bone harvested from the iliac crest has been and is still considered the "gold standard" in the treatment of spinal fusion. However, contraindications and potential complications associated with the use of autologous bone are well known (Dimar et al., 2009; Gruskay et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009; Miyazaki et al., 2009). In order to overcome these limitations, several alternatives have been developed, clinically tested and are today available on the market: growth factors (BMPs) (Carragee et al., 2011; Kannan et al., 2015), allogenic bone or heterologous ( Gupta et al., 2015; Park et al., 2013), demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and synthetic ceramic materials to name a few (Abdullah et al., 2011; Fischer et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2012) . Despite all of these materials have been extensively studied (Abdullah et al., 2011; Alsaleh et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2012; Miyazaki et al., 2009) the available data are often uneven in quality, type of study, assessments performed and conclusions reached (Hsu et al., 2012; Kannan et al., 2015; Miyazaki et al., 2009). The ceramic bone substitutes of synthetic origin (Nickoli and Hsu, 2014), such as collagen, tricalcium phosphate (TCP) (Dai and Jiang, 2008), calcium phosphate (CaP), calcium sulphate (CaS) and hydroxyapatite (HA), have been designed and developed as osteoconductive scaffolds with characteristics and properties very similar to those of human bone, able to support the regeneration and bone remodeling, and go into slow resorption (Alsaleh et al. , 2012; Gao et al., 2014; Hsu et al., 2012; Kaiser et al., 2014; Kho and Chen, 2008; Korovessis et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2009; Zhou and Lee, 2011) . Fin-Ceramica Faenza SpA is a company engaged in the development of innovative solutions in the field of bone regeneration, and one of the latest solutions in the field of bone substitutes proposes the use of hydroxyapatite-based ceramic composites, biomaterials biomimetic new generation (Blackbeard et al., 2013; Zhou and Lee, 2011). Among these biomaterials, SintLife is a bone substitute consisting of Mg-HA crystals nano (sintered at body temperature). pre-clinical and preliminary clinical data show Sintlife the safety of the product and support the ability to use it as a bone substitute for spinal fusion (Brodano Barbanti et al., 2015; Brodano et al., 2014; Manfrini et al., 2013).
- IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF MEDICAL DEVICE SintLife is an implantable medical device, not active, with bone substitute function. SintLife features reabsorbtion cell-mediated. SintLife is a bone substitute, in paste form, consisting of physiological saline (percentage to 46%) and nanocrystals of magnesium-substituted hydroxyapatite (Mg-HA). The Mg2 + ions are introduced within the crystalline cell of HA in the same position and percentage found in the human bone mineral phase. E 'was shown that the presence of Mg2 + deforms the structure of the HAS crystalline cell by making it unstable and biologically active, thus promoting bone formation, remodeling, and a rapid resorption mediated by the cells of the material. In addition, the Mg-HA actively interacts with the water molecules to quickly capture key proteins involved in osteogenesis. SintLife interacts with the cells that form bone and promotes the deposition of new bone tissue. Thanks to its specific chemical composition and biomimetics, the nanostructure and the surface properties, it is reabsorbed and remodeled by the action mobile phone in a physiologically appropriate time (6-18 months), remaining at the application site for the duration of growth and of maturation of new bone. During the remodeling phase, one can observe the resorbing activity of osteoclasts to work around the particles of the material, until a complete bone regeneration (5). SintLife is classified as a Class III medical device, is CE marked and complies with current European legislation on medical devices (EC Directive 93/42 / EC amended 2007/47 / EC).
- PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION This pilot study is to evaluate the potential effectiveness of bone substitute SintLife within the spinal surgery in spinal stabilization applications for degenerative diseases. In particular, the investigators aim to evaluate:
- the ability of bone regeneration / molding, defined as the presence of trabecular bone continuous bridge and absence of radiolucent lines, verified by diagnostic imaging (CT) and evaluated by means of in accordance with the scale Brantingan
- the patient's state of health, through the comparison of the functional-symptom pattern between pre- and post-operative, verified by the scores Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and EuroQol (EQ-5D);
- the safety of the medical device, through the impact of any adverse events, complications, unexpected reactions, accidents.
- STUDY DESIGN
4.1. Study characteristics This collection of clinical data is set up as post-market pilot study. It will be included in the study all consecutive patients who require spinal fusion surgery, in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria as voluntary and after signing the informed consent. Patients will be treated and followed postoperatively according to normal clinical practice, surgical and therapeutic in place at the Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute of Bologna.
The total duration of data collection is 36 months:
- the stage of patient enrollment is 18 months from the date of approval of the study by the Ethics Committee of the center;
- the phase of post-operative monitoring is 18 months, with planned at 6, 12 and 18 months follow-up (± 15 days before scheduled date).
In relation to the literature up to now produced, it is considered advisable to provide a post-operative control at 18 months since the chemical composition and biomimetic hydroxyapatite-magnesium shows remodeling and resorption, in a physiologically time comprised between 6 and 18 months, as well as for other reported in Section 4.
18 months is therefore the appropriate follow up to verify the medium term biomaterial behavior.
All data will be collected in a systematic, timely and uniform in a specific report form (SRD) paper.
4.2. Treatment directions Patients will be treated for degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease.
The fusion technique used will be the posterolateral arthrodesis, of one or more vertebral levels included in the lumbosacral (L1-S1), obtained by means of screws and bars, together with a preparation of the transverse processes treated with bone substitute in order to Sintlife obtain new bone formation and then spinal fusion. It also provided the ability to associate interbody posterolateral arthrodesis with the use of cage.
4.3. Visits plan During each visit (pre-operative, intra-operative, post-operative and follow-up) will be the responsibility of the surgeon to fill in the specific section in gathering data of every patient card.
The activities for each visit will be carried out as described below and as shown in the flow chart of visits (paragraph 2):
- preoperative examination (pre-op) - signing the informed consent, assessment of the criteria for inclusion - exclusion, recording demographic data and medical history, the SEA assessment and ODI;
- intervention - surgical report, TC, reports of potential adverse events intraoperative or immediate postoperative;
- follow-up visit at 6 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D;
- follow-up visit at 12 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D, TC;
- follow-up visit at 18 months after surgery - report of any adverse events, the SEA assessment, ODI, EQ-5D, TC.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- Pilot study
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| SintLife | Experimental | Device: SintLifeUse of SintLife putty as bone substitute for spinal fusion in lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients who have provided consent to the processing of personal data;
- Patients over the age of 18;
- Patients who require posterolateral fusion of lumbosacral tract (L1- S1);
- Patients suffering from traumatic and degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease;
- Patients who agree to participate in the program of visits required by the Protocol.
Key exclusion criteria (16 listed)
- systemic or localized infection
- inflammatory or autoimmune disease
- hypercalcemia
- coagulation disorders
- metabolic disorders
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SintLifePatients will be treated for degenerative diseases of the spine, such as lumbar stenosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease. The fusion technique used will be the posterolateral arthrodesis of one or more vertebral levels included in the lumbosacral region (L1-S1), obtained by screws and bars, together with a preparation of the transverse processes treated with bone substitute in order to Sintlife obtain new bone formation and then spinal fusion. It is also possible to associate interbody fusion with the use of a cage. | Device | SintLife |
Primary outcome
Spinal fusion
Time frame: 18 months
Brantigan fusion score to evaluate 5 levels of fusion
4 secondary outcomes
Back pain assessed by VAS (Visual Analog Scale)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Functional activity assessed by ODI (Oswestry Disability Index)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Quality of life assessed by EQ-5D (Euro-QoL5D)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6, 12, 18 months
Adverse events
Time frame: 18 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 May 2023.
- Background: PubMed 21358468Abdullah KG, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. The state of lumbar fusion extenders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Sep 15;36(20):E1328-34. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318209952b.
- Background: PubMed 22414999Alsaleh KA, Tougas CA, Roffey DM, Wai EK. Osteoconductive bone graft extenders in posterolateral thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jul 15;37(16):E993-1000. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182518859.
- Background: PubMed 26502842Barbanti Brodano G, Griffoni C, Zanotti B, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Ghermandi R, Boriani S. A post-market surveillance analysis of the safety of hydroxyapatite-derived products as bone graft extenders or substitutes for spine fusion. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Oct;19(19):3548-55.
- Background: PubMed 24718060Brodano GB, Giavaresi G, Lolli F, Salamanna F, Parrilli A, Martini L, Griffoni C, Greggi T, Arcangeli E, Pressato D, Boriani S, Fini M. Hydroxyapatite-Based Biomaterials Versus Autologous Bone Graft in Spinal Fusion: An In Vivo Animal Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 May 15;39(11):E661-E668. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000311.
- Background: PubMed 21729796Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011 Jun;11(6):471-91. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.023.
- Background: PubMed 18496340Dai LY, Jiang LS. Single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion of lumbar spine with beta-tricalcium phosphate versus autograft: a prospective, randomized study with 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 20;33(12):1299-304. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181732a8e.
- Background: PubMed 19447682Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY. Two-year fusion and clinical outcomes in 224 patients treated with a single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion with iliac crest bone graft. Spine J. 2009 Nov;9(11):880-5. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.03.013. Epub 2009 May 17.
- Background: PubMed 23440339Fischer CR, Cassilly R, Cantor W, Edusei E, Hammouri Q, Errico T. A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jun;22(6):1423-35. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2718-4. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
- Background: PubMed 24646912Gao C, Deng Y, Feng P, Mao Z, Li P, Yang B, Deng J, Cao Y, Shuai C, Peng S. Current progress in bioactive ceramic scaffolds for bone repair and regeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2014 Mar 18;15(3):4714-32. doi: 10.3390/ijms15034714.
- Background: PubMed 24979140Gruskay JA, Basques BA, Bohl DD, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Short-term adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after iliac crest bone graft for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Sep 15;39(20):1718-24. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000476.
- Background: PubMed 26191491Gupta A, Kukkar N, Sharif K, Main BJ, Albers CE, El-Amin Iii SF. Bone graft substitutes for spine fusion: A brief review. World J Orthop. 2015 Jul 18;6(6):449-56. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i6.449. eCollection 2015 Jul 18.
- Background: PubMed 24353975Hsu WK, Nickoli MS, Wang JC, Lieberman JR, An HS, Yoon ST, Youssef JA, Brodke DS, McCullough CM. Improving the clinical evidence of bone graft substitute technology in lumbar spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2012 Dec;2(4):239-48. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1315454. Epub 2012 Oct 9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Spinal Fusion
RecruitingObservational study
Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses During Anesthesia Induction Using Eleveld and Schnider
Spinal (Fusion) Surgery, Total Intravenous Anesthesia
RecruitingPhase 4
ESP Blocks for Posterior Spinal Fusion
Postoperative Pain
Recruiting
Post-Market Clinical Study of Functional Motion Outcomes in Subjects Treated With the Minuteman Device
Degenerative Conditions of the Lumbar Spine, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
RecruitingObservational study
Lumbar & Sacroiliac Fusion Study Involving Previously Implanted Devices
Fusion of Spine, Sacroiliac; Fusion
Active, not recruiting
Post Marketing Study of MagnetOs Easypack Putty Standalone Compared to Demineralized Bone Matrix or Fibers Mixed With Autograft in Patients Undergoing Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion
Degenerative Disc Disease, Spine Fusion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Giovanni Barbanti Brodano, MD principal investigator
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SintLife in people with Spinal Fusion, run by Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 16 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 May 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Spinal fusion (time frame: 18 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03407560, which also lists 26 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 May 2023.