Clinical trial NCT06989632: Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity at at Least Five Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement
Official title: Total Lumbar Disc Prosthesis and Subsequent Work Activity 5 Years After Total Lumbar Disc Replacement
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Conditions: Lumbar Disc Degeneration
Lumbar Disc Disease
Sciatica
Lumbar Disc Herniation
Lumbar Degenerative Disease
Keywords: Chronic low back pain
Total lumbar disc replacement
Total lumbar disc arthroplasty
Sciatica
Lead sponsor: University of Valencia
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2025-05-25
Enrollment: 150
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective: OTHER
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: Patients with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc herniation and/or lumbar disc herniation that underwent a total lumbar disc replacement

Brief summary: Lumbosciatica is a very prevalent pathology. When conservative treatments fail, surgery should be considered. The traditional surgical treatment is lumbar arthrodesis. The vast majority of patients who undergo spinal fusion cannot return to their same job and a good number of them never work again. Another form of treatment for lumbosciatica is the implantation of a lumbar disc prosthesis. This technique preserves the mobility of the lumbar area that has been operated on. This allows for a greater return to work and a higher percentage of those who return to the same job. This study aims to quantify how many of the patients who have had a lumbar disc prosthesis implanted in the last twenty years have returned to their same job, how many have had to change their jobs, and how many have not returned to work and are now totally or completely disabled from work.

Detailed description: Low back pain is one of the most prevalent pathologies in the world population and one of the most frequent causes of temporary and permanent work incapacity, particularly in today's largely sedentary society.

Although its etiology is broad, degenerative disc disease, herniated disc, and osteoarthritis of the facet joints are its most common causes.

Conservative treatments resolve many cases, but when they are not effective, surgical options must be considered. These can be classified into two groups: those involving vertebral fusion with loss of mobility at the level or levels in question and those attempting to preserve it.

In lumbar disc herniation, the classic treatment, discectomy, consists of more or less completely removing the nucleus pulposus through a relatively small posterior annulotomy. This causes a loss of height of the intervertebral disc and the foramina and overload of the articular facets, which over time can be accompanied by arthritic changes and trigger chronic lumbar pain.

In the degeneration of the intervertebral disc and the osteoarthritis of the articular facets, the traditional surgical technique is the arthrodesis of the vertebral segment or segments causing the symptoms. The immobilization of the painful spinal area limits the progression of the foraminal stenosis and the overload of the articular facets of the level or levels operated on. However, the fusion alters the biomechanics of the spine, causing the overload of the adjacent vertebral segments with degeneration and osteoarthritis of these, which is the cause of chronic pain. It is not uncommon that, over the years, reintervention is required to extend the arthrodesis. In turn, a larger area of fused spine will cause more overload of the adjacent levels, which will also suffer the same process of degeneration and arthrosis mentioned above, thus creating a vicious circle.

The initial step of fusion of the painful joint has also been followed in the spine in the attempt to preserve mobility by implanting a complete prosthesis of the intervertebral disc, provided that there is no degeneration or arthrosis of the articular facets. It is an option to consider compared to arthrodesis of the same segment with the appropriate surgical technique (posterolateral arthrodesis, PLIF, TLIF, X-LIF, ALIF, OLIF, 360º lumbar arthrodesis, etc.).

Studies comparing lumbar arthrodesis and arthroplasty indicate that complete lumbar disc prostheses provide a better quality of life, better control of lumbar and radicular pain symptoms, an earlier return to work, a lower incidence of adjacent level syndromes, and a lower number of complications and reinterventions. These differences are most noticeable during the first year after surgery, disappear after two years, and reappear after five years, due to the appearance of adjacent level syndrome. However, we have been able to find in the scientific literature after a thorough search which of the two surgical techniques, arthrodesis or arthroplasty at the lumbar level, achieves a greater return to the same job, or even if there are differences in terms of the work activity that each of the two surgical techniques allows. The objective of the present study is to first analyze in patients with complete lumbar disc prosthesis the percentage of return to the same job, of work activity even if it is in another job, if there is a change of work activity to what type it is changed and finally the percentage of patients who are left with work disability, of what kind and with what degree of disability. To compare with lumbar arthrodesis is not possible at this time because the arthrodesis technique, unlike arthroplasty, is very variable according to the surgeons on the team, and in our Institution, it is not possible to obtain retrospectively a homogeneous group with which to compare.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Age over 18 years with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disc herniation and/or lumbar disc herniation.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Any patient who BEFORE the implantation of a complete lumbar disc prosthesis had undergone any other type of surgical intervention on the lumbar spine. In particular, patients who had previously undergone a discectomy, whatever its form, or a spinal arthrodesis, whatever its technique, will be excluded from the study.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Number of participants who have had a lumbar disc prosthesis implanted in the last twenty years and have returned to their same job
timeFrame: We started to implant total lumbar disc prosthesis in 2006 and have continued up to now. We want to know the results in our patients re work and sport activities at 01 May 2025
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: València
country: Spain
facility: Consorcio Hospital General Universitario de Valencia
state: Valencia
Study officials:
References:
citation: Skold C, Tropp H, Berg S. Five-year follow-up of total disc replacement compared to fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2013 Oct;22(10):2288-95. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2926-y. Epub 2013 Jul 29.
citation: Wei J, Song Y, Sun L, Lv C. Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop. 2013 Jul;37(7):1315-25. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1883-8. Epub 2013 May 4.
citation: Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009 Oct;18(10):1512-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1047-0. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
citation: Eliasberg CD, Kelly MP, Ajiboye RM, SooHoo NF. Complications and Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Lumbar Total Disc Arthroplasty and Lumbar Fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(2):173-81. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001180.
citation: Radcliff K, Spivak J, Darden B 2nd, Janssen M, Bernard T, Zigler J. Five-Year Reoperation Rates of 2-Level Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Versus Fusion: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin Spine Surg. 2018 Feb;31(1):37-42. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000476.
citation: Song J, Katz A, Ngan A, Silber JS, Essig D, Qureshi SA, Virk S. Comparison of value per operative time between anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lumbar disc arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched analysis. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2022 Oct-Dec;13(4):427-431. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_99_22. Epub 2022 Dec 7.
citation: Zigler J, Gornet MF, Ferko N, Cameron C, Schranck FW, Patel L. Comparison of Lumbar Total Disc Replacement With Surgical Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Disc Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 5-Year Outcomes From Randomized Controlled Trials. Global Spine J. 2018 Jun;8(4):413-423. doi: 10.1177/2192568217737317. Epub 2017 Nov 16.
citation: Ding F, Jia Z, Zhao Z, Xie L, Gao X, Ma D, Liu M. Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Eur Spine J. 2017 Mar;26(3):806-815. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4714-y. Epub 2016 Jul 23.
citation: Mattei TA, Beer J, Teles AR, Rehman AA, Aldag J, Dinh D. Clinical Outcomes of Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Surgical Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. Global Spine J. 2017 Aug;7(5):452-459. doi: 10.1177/2192568217712714. Epub 2017 Jul 7.
citation: Geisler FH. Surgical treatment for discogenic low-back pain: lumbar arthroplasty results in superior pain reduction and disability level improvement compared with lumbar fusion. SAS J. 2007 Feb 1;1(1):12-9. doi: 10.1016/SASJ-2006-0002-RR. eCollection 2007.
citation: Mu X, Wei J, A J, Li Z, Ou Y. The short-term efficacy and safety of artificial total disc replacement for selected patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Dec 28;13(12):e0209660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209660. eCollection 2018.
citation: Bai DY, Liang L, Zhang BB, Zhu T, Zhang HJ, Yuan ZG, Chen YF. Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(29):e16460. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016460.
citation: Cui XD, Li HT, Zhang W, Zhang LL, Luo ZP, Yang HL. Mid- to long-term results of total disc replacement for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Dec 26;13(1):326. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-1032-6.
citation: Gornet MF, Burkus JK, Dryer RF, Peloza JH, Schranck FW, Copay AG. Lumbar disc arthroplasty versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion: 5-year outcomes for patients in the Maverick disc investigational device exemption study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 May 17;31(3):347-356. doi: 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181037. Print 2019 Sep 1.
citation: Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E, Tominaga Y, Henderson G, Serhan H. Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Apr 20;32(9):959-66; discussion 967. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000260792.13893.88.
citation: McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, Adams K, Blumenthal S, Guyer RD, Dmietriev A, Maxwell JH, Regan JJ, Isaza J. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part II: evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jul 15;30(14):1576-83; discussion E388-90. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000170561.25636.1c.
citation: Duan X, Shao Z, Xie K, Wang Z. [Research progress of percutaneous 360 degree axial lumbar interbody fusion technique]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009 Aug;23(8):917-20. Chinese.
citation: Li HM, Zhang RJ, Shen CL. Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease. World Neurosurg. 2019 Feb;122:e627-e638. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.115. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
citation: Ni J, Fang X, Zhong W, Liu N, Wood KB. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Discogenic Low Back Pain: Evaluation of L4-S1 Fusion. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Oct;94(43):e1851. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001851.
citation: Augusto A, Dias RG, Wajchenberg M, Martins D. EXTREME LATERAL INTERBODY FUSION IN PACIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN. Acta Ortop Bras. 2020 Sep-Oct;28(5):256-260. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220202805233621.
citation: Hara M, Nishimura Y, Nakajima Y, Umebayashi D, Takemoto M, Yamamoto Y, Haimoto S. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disorders: Mini-open TLIF and Corrective TLIF. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2015;55(7):547-56. doi: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2014-0402. Epub 2015 Jun 29.
citation: Lan T, Hu SY, Zhang YT, Zheng YC, Zhang R, Shen Z, Yang XJ. Comparison Between Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr;112:86-93. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.021. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
citation: Parker LM, Murrell SE, Boden SD, Horton WC. The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Aug 15;21(16):1909-16; discussion 1916-7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199608150-00016.
citation: David T. Lumbar disc prosthesis. Surgical technique, indications and clinical results in 22 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Spine J. 1993 Mar;1(4):254-9. doi: 10.1007/BF00298370.
citation: Jacobs WC, van der Gaag NA, Kruyt MC, Tuschel A, de Kleuver M, Peul WC, Verbout AJ, Oner FC. Total disc replacement for chronic discogenic low back pain: a Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jan 1;38(1):24-36. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182741b21.
citation: Forsth P, Gerdhem P, Svensson O. [Lumbar disc prosthesis, a high risk treatment for low back pain.]. Lakartidningen. 2020 Mar 19;117:FZHI. Swedish.
citation: Tobert DG, Antoci V, Patel SP, Saadat E, Bono CM. Adjacent Segment Disease in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine. Clin Spine Surg. 2017 Apr;30(3):94-101. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000442.
citation: Bozduman O, Citir OC, Gurun E. Evaluation of Functional Capacity and Satisfaction of Patients With Lumbosacral Fusion. Cureus. 2023 Jan 27;15(1):e34284. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34284. eCollection 2023 Jan.
citation: Drysch A, Ajiboye RM, Sharma A, Li J, Reza T, Harley D, Park DY, Pourtaheri S. Effectiveness of Reoperations for Adjacent Segment Disease Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion. Orthopedics. 2018 Mar 1;41(2):e161-e167. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170621-02. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
citation: Vraa ML, Myers CA, Young JL, Rhon DI. More Than 1 in 3 Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain Continue to Use Opioids Long-term After Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review. Clin J Pain. 2021 Dec 1;38(3):222-230. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001006.
citation: Koenders N, Rushton A, Verra ML, Willems PC, Hoogeboom TJ, Staal JB. Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2019 Apr;28(4):696-709. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5680-3. Epub 2018 Jul 11.
citation: Hashimoto K, Aizawa T, Kanno H, Itoi E. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery-a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2019 Apr;43(4):987-993. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4241-z. Epub 2018 Nov 23.
citation: Andersson GB, Mekhail NA, Block JE. Treatment of intractable discogenic low back pain. A systematic review of spinal fusion and intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET). Pain Physician. 2006 Jul;9(3):237-48.
citation: Bydon M, De la Garza-Ramos R, Macki M, Baker A, Gokaslan AK, Bydon A. Lumbar fusion versus nonoperative management for treatment of discogenic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014 Jul;27(5):297-304. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000072.
citation: DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR, Laplante BL. Is the history of a surgical discectomy related to the source of chronic low back pain? Pain Physician. 2012 Jan-Feb;15(1):E53-8.
citation: Zhao L, Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Abd-Elsayed A. Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: Current Treatment Strategies and Future Options-a Literature Review. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2019 Nov 9;23(11):86. doi: 10.1007/s11916-019-0821-x.
citation: Petersen T, Juhl CB, Fournier GL. Patients With Persistent Low Back Pain and Nerve Root Involvement: To Operate, or Not to Operate, That Is the Question. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Apr 1;45(7):483-490. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003304.
citation: Willems P. Decision making in surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: the performance of prognostic tests to select patients for lumbar spinal fusion. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2013 Feb;84(349):1-35. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.753565.
citation: Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05.
citation: Rahimzadeh P, Imani F, Ghahremani M, Faiz SHR. Comparison of percutaneous intradiscal ozone injection with laser disc decompression in discogenic low back pain. J Pain Res. 2018 Jul 31;11:1405-1410. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S164335. eCollection 2018.
citation: Zeckser J, Wolff M, Tucker J, Goodwin J. Multipotent Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment for Discogenic Low Back Pain and Disc Degeneration. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016:3908389. doi: 10.1155/2016/3908389. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
citation: Mahmoudzadeh A, Rezaeian ZS, Karimi A, Dommerholt J. The effect of dry needling on the radiating pain in subjects with discogenic low-back pain: A randomized control trial. J Res Med Sci. 2016 Oct 18;21:86. doi: 10.4103/1735-1995.192502. eCollection 2016.
citation: Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Kaye AD, Hirsch JA. Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Pain. 2018 Jan;31(1):27-38. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2018.31.1.27. Epub 2018 Jan 2.
citation: Helm Ii S, Simopoulos TT, Stojanovic M, Abdi S, El Terany MA. Effectiveness of Thermal Annular Procedures in Treating Discogenic Low Back Pain. Pain Physician. 2017 Sep;20(6):447-470.
citation: Ko S, Vaccaro AR, Lee S, Lee J, Chang H. The prevalence of lumbar spine facet joint osteoarthritis and its association with low back pain in selected Korean populations. Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Dec;6(4):385-91. doi: 10.4055/cios.2014.6.4.385. Epub 2014 Nov 10.
citation: Simon J, McAuliffe M, Shamim F, Vuong N, Tahaei A. Discogenic low back pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014 May;25(2):305-17. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2014.01.006. Epub 2014 Feb 28.
citation: Samini F, Gharedaghi M, Khajavi M, Samini M. The etiologies of low back pain in patients with lumbar disk herniation. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014 Oct 5;16(10):e15670. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.15670. eCollection 2014 Oct.
citation: US Burden of Disease Collaborators; Mokdad AH, Ballestros K, Echko M, Glenn S, Olsen HE, Mullany E, Lee A, Khan AR, Ahmadi A, Ferrari AJ, Kasaeian A, Werdecker A, Carter A, Zipkin B, Sartorius B, Serdar B, Sykes BL, Troeger C, Fitzmaurice C, Rehm CD, Santomauro D, Kim D, Colombara D, Schwebel DC, Tsoi D, Kolte D, Nsoesie E, Nichols E, Oren E, Charlson FJ, Patton GC, Roth GA, Hosgood HD, Whiteford HA, Kyu H, Erskine HE, Huang H, Martopullo I, Singh JA, Nachega JB, Sanabria JR, Abbas K, Ong K, Tabb K, Krohn KJ, Cornaby L, Degenhardt L, Moses M, Farvid M, Griswold M, Criqui M, Bell M, Nguyen M, Wallin M, Mirarefin M, Qorbani M, Younis M, Fullman N, Liu P, Briant P, Gona P, Havmoller R, Leung R, Kimokoti R, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Hay SI, Yadgir S, Biryukov S, Vollset SE, Alam T, Frank T, Farid T, Miller T, Vos T, Barnighausen T, Gebrehiwot TT, Yano Y, Al-Aly Z, Mehari A, Handal A, Kandel A, Anderson B, Biroscak B, Mozaffarian D, Dorsey ER, Ding EL, Park EK, Wagner G, Hu G, Chen H, Sunshine JE, Khubchandani J, Leasher J, Leung J, Salomon J, Unutzer J, Cahill L, Cooper L, Horino M, Brauer M, Breitborde N, Hotez P, Topor-Madry R, Soneji S, Stranges S, James S, Amrock S, Jayaraman S, Patel T, Akinyemiju T, Skirbekk V, Kinfu Y, Bhutta Z, Jonas JB, Murray CJL. The State of US Health, 1990-2016: Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Among US States. JAMA. 2018 Apr 10;319(14):1444-1472. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0158.
citation: Becker BA, Childress MA. Nonspecific Low Back Pain and Return To Work. Am Fam Physician. 2019 Dec 1;100(11):697-703.
citation: Luckhaupt SE, Dahlhamer JM, Gonzales GT, Lu ML, Groenewold M, Sweeney MH, Ward BW. Prevalence, Recognition of Work-Relatedness, and Effect on Work of Low Back Pain Among U.S. Workers. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 20;171(4):301-304. doi: 10.7326/M18-3602. Epub 2019 May 14.
citation: Yang H, Haldeman S, Lu ML, Baker D. Low Back Pain Prevalence and Related Workplace Psychosocial Risk Factors: A Study Using Data From the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016 Sep;39(7):459-472. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2016.07.004. Epub 2016 Aug 25.
citation: Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Oberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M, Croft P; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. Low back pain: a call for action. Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2384-2388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30488-4. Epub 2018 Mar 21.
citation: Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Hirsch JA. Epidemiology of low back pain in adults. Neuromodulation. 2014 Oct;17 Suppl 2:3-10. doi: 10.1111/ner.12018.
citation: Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:1. doi: 10.1590/S0034-8910.2015049005874. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
citation: Fatoye F, Gebrye T, Odeyemi I. Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data. Rheumatol Int. 2019 Apr;39(4):619-626. doi: 10.1007/s00296-019-04273-0. Epub 2019 Mar 8.