Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Hospital San Carlos, Madrid | OTHER |
| FUNDACION PARA LA INVESTIGACION HOSPITAL CLINICO SAN CARLOS | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the theory of epidural pressure by comparing a surgical procedure that aims to perform less bone resection compared to conventional surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.
The main questions it aims to answer is:
Is bony decompression of the lumbar canal performed until normalization of epidural pressure not inferior to conventional surgery in achieving clinical improvement in patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis?
Researchers will:
Compare conventional open laminectomy to bony decompression of the lumbar canal until normalization of epidural pressure is achieved.
Participants will:
This is a non-inferiority, controlled, randomized, single-blind clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of full lumbar canal bony decompression up to normalization of epidural pressure versus open laminectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis. The study will not involve any medical industry sponsorship.
Surgical intervention decisions will be made by a single neurosurgeon at Hospital ClÃnico San Carlos, based on clinical scales and imaging as specified in the inclusion criteria. After the patient signs the informed consent form and is placed on the surgical waiting list, they will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio (simple randomization implemented via SPSS software). Baseline clinical scales will be administered (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, ZCQ; Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NPRS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, JOABPEQ) to establish the patient's baseline status. The patient will remain blinded to the assigned intervention group.
Study Interventions:
The CODMAN Microsensor pressure catheter (Integra LifeSciences) is a transducer with a distal strain gauge that records pressure changes in a given medium. Its proximal end has an electrical connector that must be attached to the ICP Express monitor. This particular microsensor model was chosen due to its availability in the operating room inventory and because it has been used in previous studies published in the scientific literature.
All surgeries will be performed by a single neurosurgeon at Hospital ClÃnico San Carlos. Patients will be evaluated two weeks after surgery, at which time clinical scales will be applied and the surgical wound will be checked. Subsequently, patients will be evaluated at 3 and 6 months postoperatively via telephone follow-up, and at 12 months with an in-person visit, during which clinical outcome scales will be administered.
Additionally, a lumbosacral MRI will be obtained 3 months after surgery to qualitatively assess the degree of decompression achieved in each patient.
Sociodemographic data and clinical outcome variables will be collected during the preoperative consultation and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. Imaging data will be collected from the patient's preoperative lumbar spine MRI (baseline) and from the lumbar MRI obtained 3 months postoperatively. T2-weighted axial sequences will be used to qualitatively assess the extent of bony decompression.
The database generated for the study will not contain any patient identifiers, thus maintaining confidentiality of patient identity. Study data will be recorded in a de-identified manner linked to a unique code per patient, such that only the researcher can associate these data with an individual medical record. Access to participants' clinical documentation will be limited to the investigators and personnel responsible for data quality assurance and analysis.
All procedures will adhere to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), and to Spanish Organic Law 3/2018 of December 5 on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee of Digital Rights (LOPDGDD). The entity responsible for data processing is Hospital ClÃnico San Carlos, whose Data Protection Officer is the DPO Committee of the Regional Health Authority of the Community of Madrid. This entity will handle data for the purposes outlined in this document.
Personal data, including health data, will be retained for the duration of the project and up to three years after its conclusion. Patients may exercise their rights of access and rectification of data, as well as the right to restrict data processing and to request a copy of their data or transfer of their data to a third party.
Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the demographic and clinical data. Quantitative variables will be summarized by their mean and standard deviation (SD) if normally distributed. Quantitative variables with a skewed distribution will be summarized by median and interquartile range (IQR). Qualitative variables will be presented as frequency distributions.
No interim efficacy analysis will be performed.
Efficacy analysis will be conducted on both the Per-Protocol (PP) and Intention-to-Treat (ITT) populations. Safety analysis will be performed only on the ITT population. Data will be examined longitudinally, and the primary analysis will focus on differences in effectiveness between the two intervention modalities as measured by the ZCQ and the other clinical scales over time. Interaction terms between treatment group and time will also be included to explore whether effects differ across follow-up time points.
Non-inferiority efficacy analysis will be carried out using linear regression models with a one-sided α of 0.05 and using the non-inferiority margins. Multiple non-inferiority hypotheses will be tested (one for each clinical scale); adjustments for multiple comparisons will be applied to control the overall Type I error rate, progressively tightening the alpha for each additional hypothesis so that the study maintains the required overall error threshold.
In addition to unadjusted analyses, all analyses will be adjusted for potential confounding factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities using multiple linear regression.
For the safety analysis, any complications occurring during the study period will be analyzed. Their association with the type of intervention will be evaluated using logistic regression models. In this case, a two-sided α level of 0.05 will be considered.
All results from the analyses will be expressed as estimated mean effects with 95% confidence intervals, and these estimates will be compared against the non-inferiority margin to infer non-inferiority of the intervention. The analyses described above will be conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics v26 and R v4.4.1.
Resources for the Study
Timeline The expected duration of the trial is 2 years, subdivided into a 12-month patient recruitment period and 1 year of follow-up.
Adverse Events It is the investigator's responsibility to detect and document any occurrence meeting the criteria and definition of an adverse event (AE). Adverse events will be reported as per the guidelines established by the CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: 2017 Update and Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts.
Ethical Considerations The trial will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the current legal regulations in Spain. It will commence only after obtaining approval from the relevant Research Ethics Committee (Comité Ético de Investigación ClÃnica, CEIC).
Plan for Dissemination of Results Upon completion of the study, publications will be prepared to disseminate the findings in national or international journals, and the results will also be presented at conferences. The principal investigator commits to complying with current Spanish legislation, which mandates the publication of all results (positive or negative) in scientific journals, including reference to the approving CEIC and the study's funding source.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure-guided laminectomy (PGL) | Experimental | Osseous resection of the lamina and ligamentum flavum until the epidural pressure reaches a normal value at the stenotic segment. |
|
| Non-pressure-guided laminectomy (NPGL) | Active Comparator | Complete resection of both the lamina and the ligamentum flavum at the stenotic segment. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure-guided laminectomy (PGL) | Procedure | Osseous resection of the lamina and ligamentum flavum until the epidural pressure reaches a normal value at the stenotic segment. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) - Symptom Severity subcategory. | This scale consists of 7 items that evaluate the severity of symptoms over the last month on a numeric scale from 1 to 5, where 5 represents greater severity. A mean score of the items is calculated. | At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) - Physical Function subcategory. | Consists of 5 items evaluating functional impairment over the last month on a numeric scale from 1 to 4, where 4 represents greater disability. A mean score of the items is calculated. | At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Surgical indication determined by:
Patient consents to the proposed surgical intervention.
Patient agrees to participate in the study by signing the informed consent form.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juan P Castaño-Montoya, M.D., M.Sc. | Contact | +34669345474 | juanpcas@ucm.es | |
| Angela M Carrascosa-Granada, M.D., M.Sc.,Ph.D. | Contact | +34654849458 | amaca3582@gmail.com |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Juan P Castaño-Montoya, M.D.,M.Sc. | Universidad Complutense de Madrid | Principal Investigator |
| Angela M Carrascosa-Granada, M.D.,M.Sc.,Ph.D. | Universidad Complutense de Madrid | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital ClÃnico San Carlos | Recruiting | Madrid | 28040 | Spain |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34711752 | Background | Zhang C, Chen L, Li J, Huang D, Zhang W, Lin J. Should Posterior Midline Structures Be Preserved in Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Spine Surg. 2022 Oct 1;35(8):341-349. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001268. Epub 2021 Oct 28. | |
| 31042649 | Background |
Not provided
Not provided
At this time, a decision has not yet been made regarding the sharing of individual participant data (IPD). The research team is currently evaluating the ethical, legal, and logistical considerations involved, including participant privacy concerns and data governance policies. A final decision will be made upon completion of the study and in accordance with institutional guidelines and applicable regulations.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP_ICF | Yes | Yes | Yes | Study Protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan, and Informed Consent Form | Jun 2, 2025 |
Not provided
This is a non-inferiority, controlled, randomized, single-blind clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of full lumbar canal bony decompression up to normalization of epidural pressure versus open laminectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Laminectomy without pressure guidance (LWPG) | Procedure | Complete resection of both the lamina and the ligamentum flavum at the stenotic segment. |
|
| Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) - Patient Satisfaction subcategory. |
Consists of 5 items, classified into 4 categories (from very satisfied to very dissatisfied), assessing overall outcome, pain relief, walking ability, ability to work or do house/garden chores, and strength and balance. This subcategory is assessed at 6 months and 1 year post-surgery. |
| At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months post-surgery. |
| Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). | A pain measurement scale where patients rate their pain on an 11-point scale from 0 to 10, with 0 (far left) representing "no pain" and 10 (far right) representing "worst imaginable pain." This will be evaluated for both lower extremity symptoms (NPRS for legs) and for lower back/gluteal pain (NPRS for back or buttock). | At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. |
| Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). | Assesses disability associated with pain across 10 items, each scored from 0 (no disability) to 5 (severely affected). The result is a percentage score calculated as the sum of item scores divided by the total possible points, multiplied by 100. Disability is classified as minimal (0-20%), moderate (21-40%), severe (41-60%), crippled (61-80%), or bed-bound/exaggeration (>80%). | At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. |
| Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). | Covers five domains-pain-related disorders, lumbar spine dysfunction, gait disturbance, social life dysfunction, and psychological disorders. JOABPEQ scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status. | At enrollment and at the follow-up visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. |
| Surgical complications. | Any perioperative or postoperative complication related to the surgery. | From enrollment to the end of the follow-up at 1 year. |
| Surgical re-intervention. | Any subsequent surgical procedure required on the same spinal level during the follow-up period. | From enrollment to the end of the follow-up at 1 year. |
| Soliman MAR, Ali A. Decompression of lumbar canal stenosis with a bilateral interlaminar versus classic laminectomy technique: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurg Focus. 2019 May 1;46(5):E3. doi: 10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS18725. |
| 28927213 | Background | Boukebir MA, Berlin CD, Navarro-Ramirez R, Heiland T, Scholler K, Rawanduzy C, Kirnaz S, Jada A, Hartl R. Ten-Step Minimally Invasive Spine Lumbar Decompression and Dural Repair Through Tubular Retractors. Oper Neurosurg. 2017 Apr 1;13(2):232-245. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001407. |
| 7604339 | Background | Takahashi K, Miyazaki T, Takino T, Matsui T, Tomita K. Epidural pressure measurements. Relationship between epidural pressure and posture in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):650-3. |
| 24166020 | Background | Barz T, Melloh M, Staub LP, Lord SJ, Lange J, Merk HR. Increased intraoperative epidural pressure in lumbar spinal stenosis patients with a positive nerve root sedimentation sign. Eur Spine J. 2014 May;23(5):985-90. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-3071-3. Epub 2013 Oct 29. |
| 8747254 | Background | Takahashi K, Kagechika K, Takino T, Matsui T, Miyazaki T, Shima I. Changes in epidural pressure during walking in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Dec 15;20(24):2746-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199512150-00017. |
| 36809364 | Background | Hermansen E, Myklebust TA, Weber C, Brisby H, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, Storheim K, Aaen J, Banitalebi H, Brox JI, Grundnes O, Rekeland F, Solberg T, Franssen E, Indrekvam K. Postoperative Dural Sac Cross-Sectional Area as an Association for Outcome After Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical and Radiological Results From the NORDSTEN-Spinal Stenosis Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2023 May 15;48(10):688-694. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004565. Epub 2023 Feb 20. |
| 36317084 | Background | Gupta S, Bansal T, Kashyap A, Sural S. Correlation between clinical scoring systems and quantitative MRI parameters in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2022 Oct 20;35:102050. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2022.102050. eCollection 2022 Dec. |
| 2312537 | Background | Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Mar;72(3):403-8. |
| 36775236 | Background | Suner HI, Castano JP, Vargas-Jimenez A, Wagner R, Mazzei AS, Velazquez W, Jorquera M, Sallabanda K, Barcia Albacar JA, Carrascosa-Granada A. Comparison of the Tubular Approach and Uniportal Interlaminar Full-Endoscopic Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Our 3-Year Results. World Neurosurg. 2023 May;173:e148-e155. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.022. Epub 2023 Feb 10. |
| 32528810 | Background | Carrascosa-Granada A, Velazquez W, Wagner R, Saab Mazzei A, Vargas-Jimenez A, Jorquera M, Albacar JAB, Sallabanda K. Comparative Study Between Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Tubular Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study. Global Spine J. 2020 Apr;10(2 Suppl):70S-78S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219878419. Epub 2020 May 28. |
| 35734403 | Background | Chen X, Zheng Z, Lin J. Clinical Effectiveness of Conservative Treatments on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022 Jun 6;13:859296. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.859296. eCollection 2022. |
| 17445736 | Background | Chad DA. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Neurol Clin. 2007 May;25(2):407-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2007.01.003. |
| 30616940 | Background | Kobayashi H, Sekiguchi M, Yonemoto K, Kakuma T, Tominaga R, Kato K, Watanabe K, Nikaido T, Otani K, Yabuki S, Kikuchi SI, Konno SI; DISTO project working group. Reference values of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and characteristics of deterioration of QOL: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Diagnosis Support Tool: DISTO project. J Orthop Sci. 2019 Jul;24(4):584-589. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2018.11.022. Epub 2019 Jan 5. |
| 35503342 | Background | Katz JN, Zimmerman ZE, Mass H, Makhni MC. Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review. JAMA. 2022 May 3;327(17):1688-1699. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.5921. |
| Jun 15, 2025 |
| Prot_SAP_ICF_000.pdf |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013130 | Spinal Stenosis |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013122 | Spinal Diseases |
| D001847 | Bone Diseases |
| D009140 | Musculoskeletal Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007796 | Laminectomy |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019637 | Orthopedic Procedures |
| D013812 | Therapeutics |
| D019299 | Decompression, Surgical |
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
| D019635 | Neurosurgical Procedures |
Not provided
Not provided