Literature DB >> 19387697

Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?

Panagiotis Korovessis1, Thomas Repantis, Spyros Zacharatos, Andreas Zafiropoulos.   

Abstract

Delayed complications following lumbar spine fusion may occur amongst which is adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Although interspinous implants have been successfully used in spinal stenosis to authors' knowledge such implants have not been previously used to reduce ASD in instrumented lumbar fusion. This prospective controlled study was designed to investigate if the implantation of an interspinous implant cephalad to short lumbar and lumbosacral instrumented fusion could eliminate the incidence of ASD and subsequently the related re-operation rate. Groups W and C enrolled initially each 25 consecutive selected patients. Group W included patients, who received the Wallis interspinous implant in the unfused vertebral segment cephalad to instrumentation and the group C selected age-, diagnosis-, level-, and instrumentation-matched to W group patients without interspinous implant (controls). The inclusion criterion for Wallis implantation was UCLA arthritic grade <II, while the exclusion criteria were previous lumbar surgery, severe osteoporosis or degeneration >UCLA grade II in the adjacent two segments cephalad to instrumentation. All patients suffered from symptomatic spinal stenosis and underwent decompression and 2-4 levels stabilization with rigid pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion by a single surgeon. Lumbar lordosis, disc height (DH), segmental range of motion (ROM), and percent olisthesis in the adjacent two cephalad to instrumentation segments were measured preoperatively, and postoperatively until the final evaluation. VAS, SF-36, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used. One patient of group W developed pseudarthrosis: two patients of group C deep infection and one patient of group C ASD in the segment below instrumentation and were excluded from the final evaluation. Thus, 24 patients of group W and 21 in group C aged 65+ 13 and 64+ 11 years, respectively were included in the final analysis. The follow-up averaged 60 +/- 6 months. The instrumented levels averaged 2.5 + 1 vertebra for both groups. All 45 spines showed radiological fusion 8-12 months postoperatively. Lumbar lordosis did not change postoperatively. Postoperatively at the first cephalad adjacent segment: DH increased in the group W (P = 0.042); ROM significantly increased only in group C (ANOVA, P < 0.02); olisthesis decreased both in flexion (P = 0.0024) and extension (P = 0.012) in group W. The degeneration or deterioration of already existed ASD in the two cephalad segments was shown in 1 (4.1%) and 6 (28.6%) spines in W and C groups, respectively. Physical function (SF-36) and ODI improved postoperatively (P < 0.001), but in favour of the patients of group W (P < 0.05) at the final evaluation. Symptomatic ASD required surgical intervention was in 3 (14%) patients of group C and none in group W. ASD remains a significant problem and accounts for a big portion of revision surgery following instrumented lumbar fusion. In this series, the Wallis interspinous implant changed the natural history of ASD and saved the two cephalad adjacent unfused vertebra from fusion, while it lowered the radiographic ASD incidence until to 5 years postoperatively. Longer prospective randomized studies are necessary to prove the beneficial effect of the interspinous implant cephalad and caudal to instrumented fusion. We recommend Wallis device for UCLA degeneration I and II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19387697      PMCID: PMC2899653          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  58 in total

Review 1.  Motion preservation technologies: alternatives to spinal fusion.

Authors:  Kern Singh; Howard S An
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2006-09

2.  Point of view: Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Dilip K Sengupta
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.

Authors:  Abhishek Kumar; James Beastall; Justin Hughes; Efthimios J Karadimas; Malcolm Nicol; Francis Smith; Douglas Wardlaw
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments.

Authors:  S Umehara; M R Zindrick; A G Patwardhan; R M Havey; L A Vrbos; G W Knight; S Miyano; M Kirincic; K Kaneda; M A Lorenz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Geometrical dimensions of the lower lumbar vertebrae--analysis of data from digitised CT images.

Authors:  S H Zhou; I D McCarthy; A H McGregor; R R Coombs; S P Hughes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion.

Authors:  N Miyakoshi; E Abe; Y Shimada; K Okuyama; T Suzuki; K Sato
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage.

Authors:  S D Kuslich; G Danielson; J D Dowdle; J Sherman; B Fredrickson; H Yuan; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Gene Cheh; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Jacob M Buchowski; Michael D Daubs; Yongjung Kim; Christy Baldus
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Does superior-segment facet violation or laminectomy destabilize the adjacent level in lumbar transpedicular fixation? An in vitro human cadaveric assessment.

Authors:  Mario J Cardoso; Anton E Dmitriev; Melvin Helgeson; Ronald A Lehman; Timothy R Kuklo; Michael K Rosner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Disc height reduction in adjacent segments and clinical outcome 10 years after lumbar 360 degrees fusion.

Authors:  Tobias L Schulte; Freek Leistra; Viola Bullmann; Nani Osada; Volker Vieth; Björn Marquardt; Thomas Lerner; Ulf Liljenqvist; Lars Hackenberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  26 in total

1.  Interspinous implant with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients.

Authors:  Sung-Joo Ryu; In-Soo Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2010-05-31

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.  Biomechanical evaluation of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization: an in vitro comparison between Universal Clamp and Wallis systems.

Authors:  Brice Ilharreborde; Miranda N Shaw; Lawrence J Berglund; Kristin D Zhao; Ralph E Gay; Kai-Nan An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 3.134

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

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

5.  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

Review 6.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2009.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; David Volkheimer; John Street; Marcel F Dvorak; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

9.  Biomechanical investigation of lumbar hybrid stabilization in two-level posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Aldemar Andres Hegewald; Sebastian Hartmann; Alexander Keiler; Kai Michael Scheufler; Claudius Thomé; Werner Schmoelz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Role of muscle damage on loading at the level adjacent to a lumbar spine fusion: a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; John Street; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Ian Stavness; Marcel Dvorak; Sidney Fels; Thomas Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.