Literature DB >> 18809360

X-Stop: foot drop.

Nancy E Epstein1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The X-Stop (Kyphon, Sunnyvale, CA), a device implanted between adjacent lumbar spinous processes at one or two levels particularly in the geriatric population, theoretically decompresses the spinal canal by reversing the lordosis.
PURPOSE: The X-Stop relieves the symptoms of lumbar stenosis. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: A case report from the United States. PATIENT SAMPLE: A case report focusing on how X-Stop placement resulted in a bilateral foot drop in an 84-year-old patient, which was relieved 9 months later with laminectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: The patient's outcome was based on the neurological examination.
METHODS: An 84-year-old male with lumbar neurogenic claudication/radiculopathy, exhibited magnetic resonance (MR)-documented L4-L5 lumbar stenosis and Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. At an outside institution, an L4-L5 X-Stop was placed; he immediately developed a bilateral foot drop. Three months later, the X-Stop extruded, and was removed; his foot drop remained unchanged. Nine months after the original surgery, based on new MR/computed tomography (CT) documented severe (L2-L3, L4-L5), moderate (L1-L2, L3-L4, L5-S1) stenosis, and the L4-L5 Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis, the second surgeon performed an L1-S1 laminectomy with L4-L5 noninstrumented fusion.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, the patient's bilateral foot drop largely resolved.
CONCLUSIONS: Placing the X-Stop device at severely stenotic levels, particularly when accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis, may contribute to significant postoperative neurological sequelae in geriatric patients. For those with limited comorbidities, operative decompression may prove the safer alternative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18809360     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  8 in total

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

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

2.  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

3.  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 4.  Effectiveness of interspinous implant surgery in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Ronald H M A Bartels; Wilco C H Jacobs; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A review of interspinous fusion devices: High complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-01-21

6.  Spine surgery in geriatric patients: Sometimes unnecessary, too much, or too little.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2011-12-31

7.  Grade 1 spondylolisthesis and interspinous device placement: removal in six patients and analysis of current data.

Authors:  Parker E Bohm; Karen K Anderson; Elizabeth A Friis; Paul M Arnold
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-04-02

8.  What Can Spine Surgeons Do to Improve Patient Care and Avoid Medical Negligence Suits?

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2020-03-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.