ClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT02370628VITTAUpdated Jun 14, 2018

Vertebroplasty In The Treatment Of Acute Fracture Trial - The VITTA Trial

An interventional study of Percutaneous vertebroplasty and Facet block in Vertebral Compression Fractures, sponsored by Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM). Terminated at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-06-14.

Sponsored by Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
too few participants enrolled and few interested patients in three years
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
2
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The VITTA trial is a randomized, controlled, single-blinded, cross-over trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with facet block in patients with acute (\<1month) and painful vertebral compression fractures.

The treatment offered for vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) in the interventional arm of the trial is vertebroplasty, which will be performed in accordance with the standardized protocol of the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Patients in the control arm will receive facet block, where a long-acting local anesthetic agent and corticosteroids are injected in the spinal articular facets at the affected level.

Read the detailed description

Vertebroplasty is a procedure used to stabilize broken vertebrae, the bones that form the spine. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of vertebroplasty for the treatment of acute vertebral fractures.

The VITTA trial is a randomized, controlled, single-blinded, cross-over trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with facet block in patients with acute (\<1 month) and painful vertebral compression fractures.

Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) frequently result in debilitating pain, impaired functional status and bad quality of life. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) is a treatment for VCFs originally developed in France in the late 1980s and first performed in America in the mid-1990s. The procedure involves percutaneous application of bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate) into collapsed vertebrae.

VCFs are a significant public health problem with approximately 750,000 new fractures occurring in the United States each year, a number that is projected to rise as the population ages. In fact, one quarter of adults over the age of 50 will suffer at least one VCF in their lifetime. VCFs cause short term and occasionally long-term pain and disability, and although not immediately life threatening, they are associated with long term mortality. Before the advent of PV, the treatment for VCFs was limited to medical therapy- addressing the pain associated with the fracture but not the fracture itself thus making VCFs practically the only skeletal fracture not treated with orthopedic surgery. Since the introduction of vertebroplasty, over 800 papers, technical notes, and reviews that address this technique have been published with the overwhelming majority reporting significant pain relief and advocating the adoption of the procedure into common practice. Unfortunately, most of these studies had low evidence level and poor scientific design until randomized clinical trials were published in 2009.

Vertebroplasty for refractory back pain (after a period of conservative management of 1 month) constituted the main indication in the overwhelming majority of studies published so far. Although those studies have largely suggested that it does not offer significant improvement in pain or functional status relative to medical therapy or infusion of local anesthesia after this acute phase, the data remains inconclusive and of poor scientific quality. The present study proposes a different rationale: the benefits of vertebroplasty may be occurring in the acute phase (before 1 month) by providing immediate pain relief to the patient, hence allowing early mobilization and preventing medical complications associated with bed rest. In other terms, vertebroplasty may be a first line, acute phase treatment. If the investigators hypothesis holds true, an adequately powered clinical trial may provide sufficient evidence to change the medical indications for vertebroplasty.

02

Conditions studied

  • Vertebral Compression Fractures

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • percutaneous vertebroplasty
  • facet block
03

In context

Fractures, Compression

50 studies on the registry are indexed under Fractures, Compression; 10 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 2 is below the median of 73 across 32 interventional studies indexed under Fractures, Compression.

Browse Fractures, Compression studies →

Lead sponsor

Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) is the lead sponsor of 376 studies on the registry; 110 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age > 18 years
  • Presence of:
  • at least one and at most two acute VCF (\< 6 weeks) at levels caudate to T4, confirmed with physical examination and radiographic imaging
  • if timing of the fracture is unclear, the following criteria are required for inclusion in the trial

    1. an MRI scan showing edema at the fracture level(s) or
    2. a bone scan showing increased uptake
  • Physical examination showing axial back pain likely secondary to the VCF with restricted mobilization (score not maximum on any one of the following Barthel's Index items: transfer, mobility, bathing, dressing, stairs and toilet use)
  • French or English speaking patient willing to return for follow-up or capable of following up with phone interviews if needed

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Recent (\<30 days) major surgery causing debilitating pain
  • Coagulopathy or thrombocytopenia precluding interventional treatment
  • Inability to provide
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
2 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV)

    The procedure involves percutaneous application of bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate) into collapsed vertebrae.

    Procedure: Percutaneous vertebroplasty · Procedure: Facet block

  • Active comparator
    Facet block

    injection of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs

    Procedure: Facet block

Interventions

  • ProcedurePercutaneous vertebroplasty

    The procedure involves percutaneous application of bone cement (polymethylmethacrylate) into collapsed vertebrae, and has been used for treatment of patients with osteoporosis who have severe or prolonged pain following vertebral compression fracture, as well as those with painful, aggressive hemangiomas and osteolytic neoplasms. In our trial, vertebroplasty shall be performed in two steps: * Step 1: facet block * Step 2: cement infusion Therefore, patients in both arms will undergo Step 1 since our control intervention serves as a routine first part of our active intervention.

  • ProcedureFacet block

    A long-acting local anesthetic agent and corticosteroids are injected in the spinal articular facets at the affected level. All patients will undergo facet block since it serves as a routine first part to percutaneous vertebroplasty.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Achieving a score of 75 or higher on the Barthel Index functional evaluation score

    Time frame: 30 days after treatment

Secondary outcomes

  1. Rate of cross-over to the alternative treatment

    Time frame: 15 days after treatment

  2. Level of pain as measured by the visual analogue pain scale

    Time frame: at 15 days and 30 days

  3. Proportion of patients located at home

    Time frame: 15 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
    Montreal, Quebec H2L 4M1, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bourgoin P, Weill A, Tampieri D. CAR Standard for Performance of the Percutaneous Vertebroplasty. Can Assoc Radiol. 2002;(March).
  • Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 6;361(6):569-79. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900563. Erratum In: N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):970. PubMed 19657122 ↗
  • Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, Graves S, Staples MP, Murphy B. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 6;361(6):557-68. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900429. PubMed 19657121 ↗
  • Comstock BA, Sitlani CM, Jarvik JG, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Kallmes DF. Investigational vertebroplasty safety and efficacy trial (INVEST): patient-reported outcomes through 1 year. Radiology. 2013 Oct;269(1):224-31. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13120821. Epub 2013 May 21. PubMed 23696683 ↗
  • Voormolen MH, Mali WP, Lohle PN, Fransen H, Lampmann LE, van der Graaf Y, Juttmann JR, Jansssens X, Verhaar HJ. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with optimal pain medication treatment: short-term clinical outcome of patients with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The VERTOS study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Mar;28(3):555-60. PubMed 17353335 ↗
  • Do HM, Kim BS, Marcellus ML, Curtis L, Marks MP. Prospective analysis of clinical outcomes after percutaneous vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Aug;26(7):1623-8. PubMed 16091504 ↗
  • Deramond H, Darrason R GP. Percutaneous vertebroplasty with acrylic cement in the treatment of aggressive spinal angiomas. Rachis. 1989;1(2):143-53.
  • Jensen ME, Evans AJ, Mathis JM, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Dion JE. Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: technical aspects. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997 Nov-Dec;18(10):1897-904. PubMed 9403451 ↗
  • Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P, Le Gars D. Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate. Technique, indications, and results. Radiol Clin North Am. 1998 May;36(3):533-46. doi: 10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70042-7. PubMed 9597071 ↗
  • Gangi A, Guth S, Imbert JP, Marin H, Dietemann JL. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: indications, technique, and results. Radiographics. 2003 Mar-Apr;23(2):e10. doi: 10.1148/rg.e10. PubMed 12889460 ↗
  • Gu YF, Li YD, Wu CG, Sun ZK, He CJ. Safety and efficacy of percutaneous vertebroplasty and interventional tumor removal for metastatic spinal tumors and malignant vertebral compression fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar;202(3):W298-305. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10497. PubMed 24555629 ↗
  • Chen G, Luo ZP, Zhang H, Nalajala B, Yang H. Percutaneous kyphoplasty in the treatment of painful osteoblastic metastatic spinal lesions. J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Jul;20(7):948-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.08.010. Epub 2013 May 3. PubMed 23647710 ↗
  • Pereira LP, Clarencon F, Cormier E, Rose M, Jean B, Le Jean L, Chiras J. Safety and effectiveness of percutaneous sacroplasty: a single-centre experience in 58 consecutive patients with tumours or osteoporotic insufficient fractures treated under fluoroscopic guidance. Eur Radiol. 2013 Oct;23(10):2764-72. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2881-3. Epub 2013 May 21. PubMed 23689309 ↗
  • Weill A, Chiras J, Simon JM, Rose M, Sola-Martinez T, Enkaoua E. Spinal metastases: indications for and results of percutaneous injection of acrylic surgical cement. Radiology. 1996 Apr;199(1):241-7. doi: 10.1148/radiology.199.1.8633152. PubMed 8633152 ↗
  • Chiras J, Depriester C, Weill A, Sola-Martinez MT, Deramond H. [Percutaneous vertebral surgery. Technics and indications]. J Neuroradiol. 1997 Jun;24(1):45-59. French. PubMed 9303944 ↗
  • Ruiz Santiago F, Santiago Chinchilla A, Guzman Alvarez L, Perez Abela AL, Castellano Garcia Mdel M, Pajares Lopez M. Comparative review of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. World J Radiol. 2014 Jun 28;6(6):329-43. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i6.329. PubMed 24976934 ↗
  • Yimin Y, Zhiwei R, Wei M, Jha R. Current status of percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous kyphoplasty--a review. Med Sci Monit. 2013 Oct 7;19:826-36. doi: 10.12659/MSM.889479. PubMed 24097261 ↗
  • Liu J, Li X, Tang D, Cui X, Li X, Yao M, Yu P, Qian X, Wang Y, Jiang H. Comparing pain reduction following vertebroplasty and conservative treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician. 2013 Sep-Oct;16(5):455-64. PubMed 24077192 ↗
  • Fotiadou A, Wojcik A, Shaju A. Management of low back pain with facet joint injections and nerve root blocks under computed tomography guidance. A prospective study. Skeletal Radiol. 2012 Sep;41(9):1081-5. doi: 10.1007/s00256-011-1353-6. Epub 2012 Jan 10. PubMed 22230900 ↗
  • Manchikanti L, Malla Y, Wargo BW, Cash KA, Pampati V, Fellows B. Complications of fluoroscopically directed facet joint nerve blocks: a prospective evaluation of 7,500 episodes with 43,000 nerve blocks. Pain Physician. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):E143-50. PubMed 22430660 ↗
  • Melton LJ 3rd. Epidemiology of spinal osteoporosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24 Suppl):2S-11S. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199712151-00002. PubMed 9431638 ↗
  • Jones G, White C, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA. Prevalent vertebral deformities: relationship to bone mineral density and spinal osteophytosis in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int. 1996;6(3):233-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01622740. PubMed 8783298 ↗
  • Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, Center JR. Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301(5):513-21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.50. PubMed 19190316 ↗
  • Rousing R, Andersen MO, Jespersen SM, Thomsen K, Lauritsen J. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared to conservative treatment in patients with painful acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: three-months follow-up in a clinical randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jun 1;34(13):1349-54. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e628. PubMed 19478654 ↗
  • Diamond TH, Bryant C, Browne L, Clark WA. Clinical outcomes after acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a 2-year non-randomised trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with conservative therapy. Med J Aust. 2006 Feb 6;184(3):113-7. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00148.x. PubMed 16460295 ↗
  • Alvarez L, Alcaraz M, Perez-Higueras A, Granizo JJ, de Miguel I, Rossi RE, Quinones D. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: functional improvement in patients with osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 1;31(10):1113-8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000216487.97965.38. PubMed 16648745 ↗
  • Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002 Aug;6(4):335-41. doi: 10.1186/cc1521. Epub 2002 May 10. PubMed 12225610 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Apr 2015 to primary completion in Jun 2018, 37 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 9, 2015
First posted
Feb 25, 2015
StartActual
Apr 17, 2015
Primary completionActual
Jun 5, 2018
CompletionActual
Jun 5, 2018
Last update
Jun 14, 2018
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 14, 2018, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02370628
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 25, 2015
Start date
Apr 17, 2015
Primary completion
Jun 5, 2018
Completion
Jun 5, 2018
Last update
Jun 14, 2018

Study contacts

Jean Raymond, MD
principal investigator · CHUM

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Jun 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion