Literature DB >> 19387698

Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis.

Johannes Kuchta1, Rolf Sobottke, Peer Eysel, Patrick Simons.   

Abstract

The clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) was assessed during a follow-up period of 2 years after X-Stop implantation. The X-Stop is the most commonly used interspinous distraction device in patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication due to LSS. Between 2003 and 2007, more than 1,000 patients were examined in our centre with symptoms of intermittent claudication due to spinal stenosis. Between February 2003 and June 2007, in 175 of these patients an X-Stop device was implanted in one or two levels. Patients were clinically evaluated regularly during a follow-up period of up to 4 years using the VAS (leg pain) score and the Oswestry disability index. The mean VAS (leg pain) score in these 175 patients was reduced from 61.2% preoperatively to 39.0% at the first clinical follow-up examination at 6 weeks postoperatively. The mean VAS score at 24 months postoperatively was 39.0%. Oswestry score was 32.6% preoperatively, 22.7% at 6 weeks, and 20.3% at 24 months postoperatively on average. In eight out of the implanted 175 patients, the X-Stop had to be removed and a microsurgical decompression had to be performed because of unsatisfactory effect of the interspinous distraction device. Our single-centre results indicate not only a satisfactory short-term, but also a good long-term effect during a follow-up period of 2 years. Functional MRI examinations provide helpful, positional-dependent preoperative information. More than any radiological feature, the typical clinical picture of positional-dependent claudication with a relief of symptoms during flexion is the most important factor for appropriate patient selection. The interspinous device does not replace microsurgical decompression in patients with massive stenosis and continuous claudication, but offers a save, effective and less invasive alternative in selected patients with spinal stenosis. Concerning the operative technique, a minimally invasive implantation with preservation of the interspinous ligament is appropriate. Functional (upright-) MRI examinations were able to demonstrate the positional-dependent stenosis. If available, fMRI represents the most helpful radiologic examination in assessing the outcome of interspinous spacer implantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19387698      PMCID: PMC2899666          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-0967-z

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Positioning on surgical table.

Authors:  Claudio Schonauer; Antonio Bocchetti; Giuseppe Barbagallo; Vincenzo Albanese; Aldo Moraci
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-06-22       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Halit Cavuşoğlu; Ramazan Alper Kaya; Osman Nuri Türkmenoglu; Cengiz Tuncer; Ibrahim Colak; Yunus Aydin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Functional MRI of the lumbar spine in erect position in a superconducting open-configuration MR system: preliminary results.

Authors:  A A Zamani; T Moriarty; L Hsu; C S Winalski; J L Schaffer; H Isbister; J F Schenck; K W Rohling; F Jolesz
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Effect of low back posture on the morphology of the spinal canal.

Authors:  S S Chung; C S Lee; S H Kim; M W Chung; J M Ahn
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Disc space narrowing and the lumbar facet joints.

Authors:  R B Dunlop; M A Adams; W C Hutton
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1984-11

6.  Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; L C Chang; S A Levine; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.

Authors:  J A Turner; M Ersek; L Herron; R Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  K E Johnsson; I Rosén; A Udén
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  35 in total

1.  The effect of the X-Stop implantation on intervertebral foramen, segmental spinal canal length and disc space in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Zongmiao Wan; Shaobai Wang; Michal Kozanek; Qun Xia; Frederick L Mansfield; Guohua Lü; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.134

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

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

3.  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

4.  [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

5.  Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Michael J Musacchio; Carl Lauryssen; Reginald J Davis; Hyun W Bae; John H Peloza; Richard D Guyer; Jack E Zigler; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Scott Leary
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-01-26

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

Authors:  Michel Benoist
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  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 8.  Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Branko Skovrlj; Jeffrey Gilligan; Holt S Cutler; Sheeraz A Qureshi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 1.337

9.  Let'X-STOP with any "distraction" from the true problem: scenarios in which minimally invasive surgery is not welcome!

Authors:  Tobias A Mattei
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 10.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.