Utilization of Bone-Anchored Annular Defect Closure to Prevent Reherniation Following Lumbar Discectomy: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Adoption and Market Access

While achieving premarket approval from the US Food and Drug Administration represents a significant milestone in the development and commercialization of a Class III medical device, the aftermath endeavor of gaining market access can be daunting. This article provides a case study of the Barricaid annular closure device (Barricaid), a reherniation reduction device, which has been demonstrated to decrease the risk of suffering a recurrent lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Following Food and Drug Administration approval, clinical adoption has been slow due to barriers to market access, including the perception of low-quality clinical evidence, questionable significance of the medical necessity of the procedure, and imaging evidence of increased likelihood of vertebral endplate changes. The aim of this article is to provide appropriate examination, rationale, and rebuttal of these concerns. Weighing the compendium of evidence, we offer a definition of a separate and unique current procedural terminology code to delineate this procedure. Adoption of this code will help to streamline the processing of claims and support the conduct of research, the evaluation of health care utilization, and the development of appropriate medical guidelines.

Clinical Implications of Vertebral Endplate Disruptions After Lumbar Discectomy: 3-Year Results from a Randomized Trial of a Bone-Anchored Annular Closure Device

Objective

Vertebral endplate disruptions (VEPD) are common findings on imaging after lumbar surgery. The objective of this study was to explore the clinical implications of VEPD development following lumbar discectomy with or without implant with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD).

Methods

This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with large postsurgical annular defects after limited lumbar discectomy who were randomized to additionally receive an ACD or no additional treatment. VEPD were identified on computed tomography and confirmed by an imaging core laboratory. Clinical outcomes included recurrent herniation, reoperation, Oswestry Disability Index, leg pain, and back pain. Patient follow-up in this study was 3 years.

Results

In the ACD group (n=272), the risk of reoperation was lower in patients with vs without VEPD (8% vs 24%, p<0.01), but no other clinical outcomes differed when stratified by VEPD prevalence or size. In the Control group (n=278), the risk of symptomatic reherniation was higher in patients with VEPD (41% vs 23%, p<0.01) and patients with the largest VEPD had the highest reoperation rates. Patient-reported outcomes were not associated with VEPD prevalence or size in the Control group.

Conclusion

VEPD had no significant influence on patient-reported outcomes at 3 years after lumbar discectomy. VEPD increased the risk of recurrence in patients treated with lumbar discectomy only, but had no negative influence in patients treated with the ACD.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2019-Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequent cause of low back pain and radiculopathy, disability, and diminution in quality of life. While nonsurgical care remains the mainstay of initial treatment, symptoms that persist for prolonged periods of time are well treated with discectomy surgery. A large body of evidence shows that, in patients with unremitting symptoms despite a reasonable period of nonsurgical treatment, discectomy surgery is safe and efficacious. In patients with symptoms lasting greater than 6 weeks, various forms of discectomy (open, microtubular, and endoscopic) are superior to continued nonsurgical treatment. The small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent disc herniation experience less improvement overall than patients who do not experience reherniation after primary discectomy. Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects (≥6 mm wide) are at a higher risk for recurrent herniation and revision surgery. Annular closure via a bone-anchored device has been shown to decrease the rate of recurrent disc herniation and associated reoperation in these high-risk patients. After a detailed review of the literature, current clinical evidence supports discectomy (open, microtubular, or endoscopic discectomy) as a medically necessary procedure for the treatment of LDH with radiculopathy in indicated patients. Furthermore, there is new scientific evidence that supports the use of bone-anchored annular closure in patients with large annular defects, who are at greater risk for recurrent disc herniation.

Performance of an Annular Closure Device in a 'Real-World', Heterogeneous, At-Risk, Lumbar Discectomy Population

Study design/setting

Retrospective analysis of single-center registry outcomes data.

Objective

Assess the utility of an annular closure device (ACD) as an adjunct to limited discectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Background

Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH) following limited discectomy persists at clinically significant rates, especially in large annular defect (at least 6 mm width) patients. While the etiology of reherniation is often multifactorial, inadequate annular occlusion remains one of the foremost considerations. Accordingly, annular closure has emerged as a promising technique and is the focus of this analysis.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of 171 patients who underwent limited lumbar discectomy with an ACD for LDH. Standardized patient assessment was performed preoperatively, three months postoperatively, and 12 months postoperatively, in addition to self-presented visits. No minimum last follow-up was required for inclusion. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS Leg/Back) pain scores were collected at all visits. Plain radiographs were obtained at all visits, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans performed annually and/or when patients presented as symptomatic. ACD-related complications due to partial or complete mesh detachment from the titanium anchor were reported. All secondary surgical interventions were also reported. The Wilcoxon Rank-sum test was used to compare outcomes and events between sub-groups (p < 0.05).

Results

Mean last follow-up for all patients was 15 months. Large annular defects were present in 154 patients (90%). Symptomatic reherniations were observed in six patients (3.5%; five were present in the large annular defect subpopulation). All patients demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in clinical outcome scores at both follow-up intervals. ACD mesh detachment was observed in 15 patients (8.8%; two underwent a subsequent surgical intervention). No symptomatic reherniations were observed in secondary herniation patients compared to six (4.1%) in the primary herniation group (p = 0.60).

Conclusions

Annular closure with the ACD results in clinically meaningful improvements in both primary and secondary LDH patients, with decreased rates of reherniation in high-risk patients compared to previous discectomy reports.

Bone-anchored annular closure following lumbar discectomy reduces risk of complications and reoperations within 90 days of discharge

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative complications of lumbar discectomy with or without bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) implant in patients at high risk of recurrent disc herniation.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared outcomes of lumbar discectomy with or without additional placement of an ACD. Patients presented with imaging evidence of lumbar disc herniation and radicular pain that was unresponsive to conservative care. Randomization occurred intraoperatively following discectomy completion and confirmation of annular defect width ≥6 mm. Main outcomes included serious adverse events (SAEs) from any cause, device- or procedure-related SAEs, and reoperations at the index level. The perioperative period included all outcomes occurring between the day of surgery and 90 days following hospital discharge.

Results

Analyses were performed on a modified intention-to-treat population consisting of 272 patients treated with ACD and 278 patients treated with lumbar discectomy only (controls). Mean patient age was 44 years, 59% were men, and mean body mass index was 26 kg/m². Baseline patient characteristics and operative outcomes were comparable between groups. The risks of all-cause SAE (9.7% vs 16.3%, p=0.056), device- or procedure-related SAE (4.5% vs 10.2%, p=0.02), and index-level reoperation (1.9% vs 5.4%, p=0.03) were lower with ACD vs controls. In multivariable logistic regression, control group assignment and female gender were independently associated with higher risk of device- or procedure-related SAE and index-level reoperation, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing lumbar discectomy to treat symptomatic intervertebral disc herniation, adjunctive placement of an ACD reduces the risk for perioperative complications occurring through 90 days following hospital discharge.