Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42481192›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Interventional, multicentre investigation of a novel lumbar total joint replacement: propensity matched study design and protocol.

Ron V Yarbrough, Hannah Spece, Steven M Kurtz, Alex J Breno, David Maislin

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04823858 active not recruitingnot on this map

A Prospective Data Collection Study of Patients Treated With a Single-Level Lumbar Interbody Fusion Stabilized With Pedicle Screws

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsor3SpineRan2021 to 2029Enrolled176ConditionsLumbar Spine DegenerationArmsLumbar Interbody Fusion
NCT05438719 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

An Interventional, Multi-center Investigation of the MOTUS Total Joint Replacement

TypeinterventionalSponsor3SpineRan2022 to 2029Enrolled158ConditionsLumbar Spine DegenerationArmsMOTUS Total Joint Replacement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ron V Yarbrough3Spine, Inc, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA.
Hannah SpeceSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA hgs29@drexel.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2114-0358
Steven M KurtzSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Science, and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alex J BrenoBiomedical Statistical Consulting LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
David MaislinBiomedical Statistical Consulting LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe study aims to demonstrate non-inferior clinical success (safety and efficacy) of the MOTUS Total Joint Replacement device relative to posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with respect to a composite endpoint. The primary hypothesis for this study is that the probability of achieving 24-month composite clinical success (CCS) for subjects receiving the investigational device is not clinically inferior to the probability of achieving 24-month CCS for subjects receiving lumbar interbody fusion collected in a separate real-world evidence (RWE) study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an interventional, multicentre (20 sites), prospective, non-blinded investigation of the MOTUS Total Joint Replacement device. The data collected in this study will be compared with a lumbar interbody fusion control group collected in an RWE study. The study design includes concurrently enrolled, non-randomised, investigational and control arms and features several elements intended to ensure comparability of subjects in the two groups. Sites were selected that would enrol both groups and represent a geographical mixture of urban and rural, teaching versus non-teaching institutions, surgical site status (ambulatory surgical centre vs hospital) and implanting surgeon specialty (neurological vs orthopaedic). Both groups were enrolled in overlapping time periods, ensuring consistency in the practice of medicine. The same postoperative protocol was applied to both groups. Covariate balance is ensured through the use of propensity score methods. The primary endpoint requires individual subject success, which is met when each subject achieves all of the following criteria at 24 months: (1) improvement of at least 15 points in Oswestry Disability Index score (out of 100) at 24 months compared with baseline; (2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status at 24 months compared with baseline; (3) no subsequent surgical intervention including revision, reoperation, removal or supplemental fixation at the index level and (4) absence of serious device-related adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This clinical study is part of an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) from an ongoing Premarket Approval (PMA) application to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both arms of the study have been reviewed and approved by an independent IRB (WCG IRB, tracking numbers 20222831 and 20211903). The study is being conducted in accordance with the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and other applicable regulatory requirements including but not limited to FDA Regulations (21 CFR 50, 54, 56 and 812), Department of Health and Human Services Regulations (45 CFR 46), ISO 14155 and the Declaration of Helsinki. Study results will be disseminated within the context of the PMA process and ClinicalTrials.gov, with the intent of publication in conferences and peer-reviewed literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT05438719; NCT04823858.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, ReplacementLumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPropensity ScoreProspective StudiesResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeClinical ProtocolsClinical TrialMusculoskeletal disordersOrthopedicsResearch DesignSpine

Identifiers

PMID42481192
PMCPMC13404482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.