Nonetheless, the "market of the spine surgery" is growing  because patients are demanding solutions for their back problems. The tide of scientific evidence seems to go against the spinal fusions in the degenerative disc disease, discogenic pain and in specific back pain. After decades of advances in this field, the results of spinal fusions are mediocre. New epidemiological studies show that "spinal fusion must be accepted as a non proved or experimental method for the treatment of back pain". The surgical literature on spinal fusion published in the last 20 years establishes that instrumentation seems to slightly increase the fusion rate and that instrumentation doesnt improve the clinical results in general. We still are in need of randomized studies to compare the surgical results with the natural history of the disease, the placebo effect, or conservative treatment. The European Guidelines for lumbar chronic pain management show  "strong evidence" indicating that complex and demanding spine surgery where different instrumentation is used, is not more effective than a simple, safer and cheaper posterolateral fusion without instrumentation. Recently, the literature published in this field is sending a message to use "minimally invasive techniques"; – the abandonment of  transpedicular fusions. Surgery in general, and usage of metal fixation should be discarded in most cases.In Sweden, the national registry of lumbar spine surgery reported in the year 2000 that 15% of patients with spinal stenosis surgery underwent a concomitant fusion.
Research
Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD)
Two phase II trials evaluated faricimabs efficacy and safety in comparison to ranibizumab and showed that faricimab received every 16 weeks and every twelve weeks was comparable to ranibizumab received every four weeks in visual acuity and imaging outcomes. In 2019, two phase III multi-center randomized studies were initiated on 1200 participants with neovascular age related macular degeneration (nAMD) to evaluate faricimabs safety, efficacy, and durability against aflibercept. Diabetic macular edema (DME)
One phase II trial evaluated faricimabs efficacy and safety in comparison to ranibizumab and showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in visual acuity. Two phase III multi-center randomized studies were completed on 1,891 diabetic participants with diabetic macular edema (DME)

References
External links
"Faricimab". Drug Information Portal. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Clinical trial number NCT03622580 for "A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Participants With Diabetic Macular Edema (YOSEMITE)" at ClinicalTrials.gov
Clinical trial number NCT03622593 for "A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab (RO6867461) in Participants With Diabetic Macular Edema (RHINE)" at ClinicalTrials.gov
Clinical trial number NCT03823287 for "A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab in Participants With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (TENAYA)" at ClinicalTrials.gov
Clinical trial number NCT03823300 for "A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Faricimab in Participants With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (LUCERNE)" at ClinicalTrials.gov