Methodological aspects of a randomized within-patient concurrent controlled design for clinical trials in spine surgery. (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lehr, A Mechteld; Jacobs, Wilco CH; Stellato, Rebecca K; Castelein, René M; Cumhur Oner, F; Kruyt, Moyo C
• Is Part Of: Clinical trials. Volume 19:Number 3(2022)
• Page Start: 259
• Page End: 266
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: Randomized controlled trial design -- research design -- clinical trial design -- intra-patient -- within-patient -- side-by-side comparison -- inter-patient variability -- between-patient variability -- spinal fusion -- bone graft; 615.5072405
• DOI: 10.1177/17407745221084705
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1740-7745

Abstract

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence, but their feasibility in the surgical field is severely hampered by methodological and practical issues. Concurrent comparison between the experimental and control conditions within the same patient can be an effective strategy to mitigate some of these challenges and improve generalizability, mainly by the elimination of between-patient variability and reduction of the required sample size. This article aims (1) to describe the methodological aspects of a randomized within-patient controlled trial and (2) to quantify the added value of this design, based on a recently completed randomized within-patient controlled trial on bone grafts in instrumented lumbar posterolateral spinal fusion. Methods: Boundary conditions for the application of the randomized within-patient controlled trial design were identified. Between-patient variability was quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient and concordance in the primary fusion outcome. Sample size, study duration and costs were compared with a classic randomized controlled trial design. Results: Boundary conditions include the concurrent application of the experimental and control conditions to identical but physically separated sites. Moreover, the outcome of interest should be local, uncorrelated and independently assessable. The spinal fusion outcomes within a patient were found to be more similar than between different patients (intraclass correlation coefficient 32% and concordance 64%), demonstrating a clear effect of patient-related factors. The randomized within-patient controlled trial design allowed a reduction of the sample size to one-third of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial, thereby halving the trial duration and costs. Conclusion: When suitable, the randomized within-patient controlled trial is an efficient design that provides a solution to some of the considerable challenges of a classic randomized controlled trial in (spine) surgery. This design holds specific promise for efficacy studies of non-active bone grafts in instrumented posterolateral fusion surgery.