文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

MILD® Is an Effective Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: MiDAS ENCORE Randomized Controlled Trial.

作者信息

Benyamin Ramsin M, Staats Peter S, MiDAS Encore Investigators

机构信息

Premier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2016 May;19(4):229-42.


DOI:
PMID:27228511
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition of the spine, which is a major cause of pain and functional disability for the elderly. Neurogenic claudication symptoms are a hallmark of LSS, where patients develop low back or leg pain when walking or standing that is relieved by sitting or lumbar flexion. The treatment of LSS generally begins with conservative management such as physical therapy, home exercise programs, and oral analgesics. Once these therapies fail, patients commonly move forward with interventional pain treatment options such as epidural steroid injections (ESIs) or MILD® as the next step. OBJECTIVE: To assess improvement of function and reduction in pain for Medicare beneficiaries following treatment with MILD (treatment group) in LSS patients with neurogenic claudication and verified ligamentum flavum hypertrophy and to compare to a control group receiving ESIs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Twenty-six US interventional pain management centers. METHODS: Patients in this trial were randomized one to one into 2 study arms. A total of 302 patients were enrolled, with 149 randomized to MILD and 153 to the active control. Outcomes are assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ). Primary efficacy is the proportion of ODI responders, tested for statistical superiority of the MILD group versus the ESI group. ODI responders are defined as patients achieving the validated Minimal Important Change (MIC) of = 10 point improvement in ODI from baseline to follow-up. Similarly, secondary efficacy is the proportion of NPRS and ZCQ responders using validated MIC thresholds. Primary safety is the incidence of device- or procedure-related adverse events in each group. This report presents safety and efficacy results at 1-year follow-up. Outcomes at 2 years will be collected and reported for patients in the MILD group only. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, ODI, NPRS, and all 3 ZCQ domains (Symptom Severity, Physical Function and Patient Satisfaction) demonstrated statistically significant superiority of MILD versus the active control. For primary efficacy, the 58.0% ODI responder rate in the MILD group was higher than the 27.1% responder rate in the epidural steroid group (P < 0.001). The primary safety endpoint was achieved, demonstrating that there is no difference in safety between MILD and ESIs (P = 1.00). LIMITATIONS: There was a lack of patient blinding due to considerable differences in treatment protocols, and a potentially higher non-responder rate for both groups versus standard-of-care due to adjunctive pain therapy study restrictions. Study enrollment was not limited to patients that had never received ESI therapy. CONCLUSIONS: One-year results of this randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrate that MILD is statistically superior to ESIs in the treatment of LSS patients with neurogenic claudication and verified central stenosis due to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy. Primary and secondary efficacy outcome measures achieved statistical superiority in the MILD group compared to the control group. With 95% of patients in this study presenting with 5 or more LSS co-factors, it is important to note that patients with spinal co-morbidities also experienced statistically significant improved function that was durable through 1 year. KEY WORDS: MILD, minimally invasive lumbar decompression, interlaminar epidural steroid injections, ESI neurogenic claudication, ligamentum flavum, ENCORE, PILD, CED Study, LSS.

摘要

相似文献

[1]
MILD® Is an Effective Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: MiDAS ENCORE Randomized Controlled Trial.

Pain Physician. 2016-5

[2]
MiDAS ENCORE: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Report of 6-Month Results.

Pain Physician. 2016-2

[3]
MiDAS ENCORE: Randomized Controlled Study Design and Protocol.

Pain Physician. 2015

[4]
Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression mild(®) for spinal stenosis.

Pain Pract. 2011-6-16

[5]
Study of percutaneous lumbar decompression and treatment algorithm for patients suffering from neurogenic claudication.

Pain Physician. 2012

[6]
MiDAS I (mild Decompression Alternative to Open Surgery): a preliminary report of a prospective, multi-center clinical study.

Pain Physician. 2010

[7]
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE.

Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018-10

[8]
Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2018-4

[9]
Five-year results of a clinical pilot study utilizing a pedicle-lengthening osteotomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

J Neurosurg Spine. 2018-9

[10]
The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results.

Pain Med. 2022-4-8

引用本文的文献

[1]
Feasibility of the Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure in a Lumbar Stenosis Patient With Radiographic Evidence of Spinal Instability.

Cureus. 2025-6-26

[2]
Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized and Prospective Trials.

J Pain Res. 2025-7-11

[3]
Three-year results of the MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous ® Procedure.

Interv Pain Med. 2025-3-12

[4]
Management of cerebrospinal fluid leak after a minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure: illustrative case.

J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2024-12-9

[5]
Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review.

Pain Ther. 2024-6

[6]
Lumbar Epidural Hematoma as a Rare Complication From Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.

Cureus. 2023-12-25

[7]
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review.

J Pain Res. 2023-11-6

[8]
The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, 2021: 4. Surgical Treatment.

Spine Surg Relat Res. 2023-7-27

[9]
The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain.

J Pain Res. 2022-12-6

[10]
Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

J Pain Res. 2022-5-5

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索