Lumbar Discogenic Pain (Disorder)
Conditions
Brief summary
DISCOGEL® is on the market since 2007. About 20,000 kits were sold to date (October 2017). The device re-obtained its CE mark in 2017. A clinical evaluation was performed by bibliographic route in 2016. Clinical data on more than 600 patients treated by DISCOGEL® were analyzed. These data should be confirmed by monitoring on the long term, with a large cohort of patients, over a two-year follow-up period. As part of the post-CE surveillance, the manufacturer GELSCOM is responsible of this Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) study in accordance with Directive 93/42/EEC and MEDDEV guide 2.12/2, to assess the efficacy and the long-term safety of DISCOGEL®. The study is comparative. The results will evaluate the performance and safety of the CE-marked medical device used in real life, in comparison with a steroid infiltration, used according to its indication and to the current standards. It will include economic data. Patients and evaluators will be blinded. Both DISCOGEL® and HYDROCORTANCYL 2,5 POUR CENT are authorized products used according to their intended use. This is an interventional, prospective, national, multi-center, comparative, randomized, single-blind (patient and evaluator) post-market clinical study. The primary objective is to compare the short-term efficacy profile of DISCOGEL® versus intradiscal steroid.
Interventions
DEVICEEthanol gel
Intradiscal injection of ethanol gel
DRUGPrednisolone acetate
Intradiscal infiltration of steroids
Sponsors
CEISO
Gelscom SAS
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patient 18 years of age or older; * 2-month refractory pain to conservative treatment, non-surgical patients; * Chronic discogenic pain (1 or 2 lumbar discs) with concordant MR imaging; * Symptomatic for at least 8 weeks despite appropriate medical treatment; * Patient who agrees to participate in the study and who signed the informed consent form; * Patient with social protection.
Exclusion criteria
* Previous surgical treatment of the studied disc(s); * Patient with pure radicular pain; * Sick leave of more than 12 months secondary to the symptoms; * Patients who cannot read or write French; * History of cognitive-behavioral disorders that could interact with assessment by self-questionnaire; * Local or general infection, or suspicion of infection; * Severe coagulation disorders; * Other rheumatic inflammatory disease; * Undercurrent serious pathology with life expectancy \< 2 years; * Female of childbearing age that are known to be pregnant during inclusion visit or wishing to become pregnant before treatment; * Subject who has forfeited their freedom by administrative or legal award, or is under guardianship or under limited judicial protection * Patient participating in another interventional clinical trial or testing an experimental drug within 30 days of inclusion in the study.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Short-term efficacy profile | Month 3 | Compare the short-term efficacy profile of DISCOGEL® versus intradiscal steroid: percentage of patients with a pain relief defined by a Low Back Pain (LBP) intensity\<4 cm on a Local Verbal Rating Scale (0 = no pain to 10 = maximum imaginable pain) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Short-term safety profile | Month 3 | Analyze the short- and long-term safety profile of DISCOGEL®: rates of complications and adverse reactions |
| Long-term safety profile | Month 12 | Analyze the short- and long-term safety profile of DISCOGEL®: rates of complications and adverse reactions |
| Questionnaire OSWESTRY | Month 24 | Describe the rate of subjects improved 24 months after treatment: OSWESTRY scale |
| Questionnaire MacNab | Month 24 | Subjective improvement 24 months after treatment: MacNab scale |
| Long-term efficacy profile | Month 12 | Compare the long-term efficacy profile of DISCOGEL® versus intradiscal steroid: Local Verbal Rating Scale: on back, bottom, thigh, leg, foot |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Month 3 | Describe radiologic evolution of the lesions: MRI of the herniated disc |
| Procedures costs | Day 0 | Compare the cost linked to the DISCOGEL® procedure and the cost linked to a steroid infiltration or surgery |
| Procedures durations | Day 0 | Compare the duration of the treatment procedures between a DISCOGEL® injection and a steroid infiltration or surgery |
| Radiography | Month 3 | Describe radiologic evolution of the lesions: radiography of the herniated disc |
Countries
France
Contacts
Primary ContactMathieu De Sèze, Dr
Backup ContactCamélia Bentaleb
Outcome results
None listed