Skip to content

Limited-efficacy Testing of Spring Distraction System (SDS) and Unilateral One-way Rod (MID-C) for Early Onset Scoliosis

Limited-efficacy Testing of Spring Distraction System (SDS) and Unilateral One-way Rod (MID-C) for Early Onset Scoliosis

Status
Withdrawn
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04003233
Acronym
UniPOWR
Enrollment
0
Registered
2019-07-01
Start date
2019-07-01
Completion date
2022-12-01
Last updated
2020-03-23

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Early-Onset Scoliosis Deformity of Spine (Disorder), Idiopathic Scoliosis

Keywords

Growth friendly system, Distraction system, Early Onset Scoliosis, Unilateral

Brief summary

The primary aim of this study is to investigate the limited efficacy of these innovative surgical solutions in treatment of Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) in terms of maintaining reduction while maintaining spinal growth. The secondary aim is to compare both devices for these and other parameters as well as safety.

Detailed description

Rationale: EOS is a severe and potentially life-threatening disorder since a disturbance of spinal development leads to impaired development of the trunk, with cardio-respiratory failure as a result, often early in adult life. Several innovative solutions have been developed to treat growing children with severe EOS. The SDS device was developed internally at the dpt. of orthopedics at the UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands, the MID-C device was developed by the company ApiFix Ltd. Objective: The primary aim of this study is to investigate the limited efficacy of these innovative surgical solutions in treatment of early onset scoliosis in terms of maintaining reduction while maintaining spinal growth. The secondary aim is to compare both devices for these and other parameters as well as safety. Study design: A feasibility study using two prospective cohorts according to an open label randomized clinical trial (RCT) design. The study will be done in two tertiary referral centers (UMC Utrecht and Amsterdam UMC). Primary endpoints are maintenance of curve correction as well as complications. These data will be compared to a recently described cohort of patients that received a standard treatment (Magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR)). The same endpoints as well as secondary outcomes, will be compared between the two new treatments. Study population: Children with idiopathic(-like) early onset scoliosis with an indication for a growing rod implant.

Interventions

DEVICESDS

The SDS will be added to a traditional growing rod (TGR) of 4.5 or 5.5mm.

DEVICEMID-C

The MID-C system consists of a unilateral one-way ratchet rod that is connected to the spine with polyaxial connectors

Sponsors

Apifix
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
UMC Utrecht
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Masking description

Participants are blinded to the medical device till the surgery. After the surgery participants are able to see which medical device is implanted on X-rays.

Intervention model description

Participants will be randomized and assigned to either SDS or MID-C.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Ambulant skeletally immature children, 6-12 yrs. of age, with open triradiate cartilages on X-ray * Scoliosis diagnosis prior to the age 10 * Diagnosis of idiopathic or mild syndromic scoliosis (e.g. 22q11DS, Trisomy 21 or 9, Coffin-Siris) * Progressive scoliosis qualified for growth system surgery * One curve for treatment with an apex below Th5 and a proximal end vertebra below Th2 * The primary curve must be between 35 and 75 degrees coronal Cobb angle * The primary curve must be non-rigid (i.e. the curve reduces on bending X-rays to \<35 degrees or reduces \>30% ) * Normal or hypokyphotic sagittal alignment (Th5 -Th12 \< 50 degrees) on lateral X-rays

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with an obvious neuromuscular disease * Patients that are severely mentally retarded * Patients with a scoliosis that extends to the pelvis or the cervicothoracic region * Patients with a main curve of more than 8 vertebra Cobb to Cobb * Patients with a skeletal dysplasia that effects growth (e.g. achondroplasia, SED) * Patients with a systemic disease which severely influences bone quality (e.g. osteogenesis imperfecta, metabolic diseases) * Patients with soft tissue weakness (e.g. Ehler Danlos, Marfan, Neurofibromatosis, Prader Willi) * Patients with an active systemic disease such as Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, HIV or oncologic treatment * Patients with a previous surgical fusion of the spine

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Limited-efficacy of SDS and MID-C in terms of curve correction maintenance: changes in cobb angleUntil 1 year post-operative FUchanges in cobb angle on radiographs post-op and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months follow-up (FU). A maximum of 5 degrees increase will be the threshold to define maintenance.
Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Serious Adverse Events of SDS and MID-CUntil 1 year post-operative FUReported treatment related Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) per-operatively and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to limited-efficacy in terms of spinal lengthUntil 1 year post-operative FUChanges in length of T1-T12, T1-S1 and the instrumented segment in mm on calibrated AP X-rays post-op and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU.
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to the incidence of Treatment-Emergent Serious Adverse EventsUntil 1 year post-operative FUReported treatment related SAEs per-operatively and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU.
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to surgery timeUntil 1 year post-operative FUSurgery time in minutes
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to blood loss during surgeryUntil 1 year post-operative FUblood loss in cc
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to length of hospital stayUntil 1 year post-operative FUlength of hospital stay in days
Limited-efficacy of SDS and MID-C in terms of spinal lengthUntil 1 year post-operative FUChanges in length of T1-T12, T1-S1 and the instrumented segment in mm on calibrated Anterior Posterior (AP) X-rays post-op and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU.
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to bone densityUntil 1 year post-operative FUBone density changes of the bypassed vertebrae on Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA)scan post-op and at 3 months en 12 months FU.
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to Quality Of Life (QOL) on the Early Onset Scoliosis Questionnaires (EOSQ-24)Until 1 year post-operative FUParent reported QOL and performance is assessed with the 24-item Early Onset Scoliosis Questionnaires (EOSQ-24) pre-op and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU. EOSQ-24 covers the following domains: Child's Health Related Quality of Life (16 items), Family Impact (2 items) and Satisfaction (2 items).
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to flexibility of the spineUntil 1 year post-operative FUFlexibility and 3D rotation of the spine on dynamic echography (Scolioscan)
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to 3D development of the spineUntil 1 year post-operative FUApical Vertebral Rotation based on MRI
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to patient appearanceUntil 1 year post-operative FUsagittal balance on clinical photographs post-op and at 1 year FU
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to recovery timeUntil 1 year post-operative FUrecovery time in minutes
SDS vs. MID-C with respect to limited-efficacy in terms of curve correction maintenanceUntil 1 year post-operative FUchanges in cobb angle on radiographs post-op and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 12 months FU. A maximum of 5 degrees increase will be the threshold to define maintenance.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026