Literature DB >> 17515824

One-year results of X Stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Manal Siddiqui1, Francis W Smith, Douglas Wardlaw.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis before and at periodic intervals after X Stop implantation and to compare the data with previous studies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The X Stop Interspinous Process Distraction Device is a relatively new interspinous implant designed for patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis particularly neurogenic claudication. Previously, a randomized study has shown a 75% improvement in symptoms and physical function at 1-year post-X Stop implantation for lumbar spinal stenosis. The only other study is a preliminary report of only 10 patients with variable intervals of clinical outcome assessment.
METHOD: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled and surgically treated with X Stop implantation. The X Stop device was implanted at the stenotic segment, which was either at 1 or 2 levels in each patient. They were clinically evaluated at the preoperative, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year stage with clinical questionnaires (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36).
RESULTS: Sixteen patients failed to complete all the questionnaires at all time intervals and hence were excluded, leaving 24 patients who had completed all questionnaire at all time interval. By 12 months, 54% of these 24 patients reported clinically significant improvement in their symptoms, 33% reported clinically significant improvement in physical function, and 71% expressed satisfaction with the procedure. 29% of the patients required caudal epidural after 12 months after surgery for recurrence of their symptoms of neurogenic claudication.
CONCLUSION: The results of this prospective observational study indicate that X Stop offers significant short-term improvement over a 1-year period. It is a safe, effective, and less invasive alternative for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results, however, are less favorable than the previous multicenter, randomized study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17515824     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31805b7694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  33 in total

1.  Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series.

Authors:  Josip Buric; Massimiliano Pulidori
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Authors:  Alex Alfieri; Roberto Gazzeri; Julian Prell; Christian Scheller; Jens Rachinger; Christian Strauss; Andreas Schwarz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  [Longterm results of the interspinous spacer X-STOP].

Authors:  A Reinhardt; S Hufnagel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space.

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Timmo Koy; Marc Röllinghoff; Jan Siewe; Thomas Kreitz; Daniel Müller; Christopher Bangard; Peer Eysel
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 1.246

5.  [Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer].

Authors:  Christoph J Siepe; Franziska Heider; Rudolf Beisse; H Michael Mayer; Andreas Korge
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Effect of a novel interspinous implant on lumbar spinal range of motion.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski; Stuart A Callary; Christopher J Colloca; Victor Kosmopoulos; Deed Harrison; Robert J Moore
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Claudius Thomé; Wolfgang Börm; Frerk Meyer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous u (coflex).

Authors:  Seong-Cheol Park; Sang Hoon Yoon; Yong-Pyo Hong; Ki-Jeong Kim; Sang-Ki Chung; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-10-31

9.  Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Klaus Schlüter-Brust; Thomas Kaulhausen; Marc Röllinghoff; Britta Joswig; Hartmut Stützer; Peer Eysel; Patrick Simons; Johannes Kuchta
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Brook I Martin; Alex Ching; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Kreuter; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.