Literature DB >> 17607096

Failure of the Wallis interspinous implant to lower the incidence of recurrent lumbar disc herniations in patients undergoing primary disc excision.

Yizhar Floman1, Michael A Millgram, Yossi Smorgick, Nahshon Rand, Ely Ashkenazi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy is a significant problem in the management of lumbar disc disease and may necessitate repeat surgical intervention. A population-based study in Finland found that about 14% of all primary lumbar discectomies required additional surgical interventions. Interspinous devices, which have been shown to unload the posterior anulus, may reduce the occurrence of recurrent herniations. We report our short-term experience with the use of the Wallis device in the management of patients with lumbar disc herniation undergoing primary disc excision. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven consecutive patients (23 males and 14 females, average age 36 y) underwent primary lumbar disc excision followed by fixation of the segment with the Wallis implant during a period of 1 year. Indications for implanting the Wallis device were a voluminous disc herniation and preservation of at least 50% of disc space height. Surgery was performed at level L4-5 in most patients. Average follow-up after surgery was 16 months (range 12 to 24). The last 14 patients were also evaluated by the preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, the SF-36 survey, and by a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain.
RESULTS: The average ODI dropped from 43 to 12.7. The average VAS for back pain dropped from 6.6 to1.4 and the average Vas for leg pain dropped from 8.2 to 1.5. Five patients (4 males and 1 female) with relapsing leg pain were diagnosed by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as suffering from recurrent herniation (5/37, 13%). All reherniations occurred at level L4-5 level between 1 and 9 months after the index surgery. Two of the 5 patients subsequently underwent additional discectomy and fusion.
SUMMARY: The current Wallis implant is probably incapable of reducing the incidence of recurrent herniations, but it still may be useful in patients with discogenic back pain due to early degenerative disc disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17607096     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318030a81d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  20 in total

1.  Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability.

Authors:  Johannes Holinka; Petra Krepler; Michael Matzner; Josef G Grohs
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  [Results of the Wallis interspinous spacer].

Authors:  M Reith; M Richter
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Interspinous implant "InSWing®" for the lumbar spine].

Authors:  Michael Pfeiffer
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.154

4.  Clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar disc herniation, selected for one-level open-discectomy and microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Kotryna Veresciagina; Bronius Spakauskas; Kazys Vytautas Ambrozaitis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  Elastic resistance of the spine: Why does motion preservation surgery almost fail?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 1.337

7.  The short- and mid-term effect of dynamic interspinous distraction in the treatment of recurrent lumbar facet joint pain.

Authors:  Mario Cabraja; Alexander Abbushi; Christian Woiciechowsky; Stefan Kroppenstedt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Critical analysis of lumbar interspinous devices failures: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Francesco Ciro Tamburrelli; Luca Proietti; Carlo Ambrogio Logroscino
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Interspinous posterior devices: What is the real surgical indication?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 10.  Repair, regenerative and supportive therapies of the annulus fibrosus: achievements and challenges.

Authors:  Johannes Leendert Bron; Marco N Helder; Hans-Jorg Meisel; Barend J Van Royen; Theodoor H Smit
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.