Literature DB >> 19967546

Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients.

Alexander Richter1, Christian Schütz, Michael Hauck, Henry Halm.   

Abstract

A number of interspinous process devices have recently been introduced to the lumbar spinal market as an alternative to conventional surgical procedures in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar stenosis. One of those "dynamic" devices is the Coflex device which has been already implanted worldwide more than 14,000 times. The aim of implanting this interspinous device is to unload the facet joints, restore foraminal height and provide stability in order to improve the clinical outcome of surgery. Published information is limited, and there are so far no data of comparison between the implant and traditional surgical approaches such as laminotomy. The purpose of our prospective study is to evaluate the surgical outcome of decompressive surgery in comparison to decompressive surgery and additional implantation of the Coflex interspinous Device. 60 patients who were all treated in the Spine Center of Klinikum Neustadt, Germany for a one or two level symptomatic LSS with decompressive surgery were included. Two groups were built. In Group one (UD) we treated 30 patients with decompression surgery alone and group two (CO) in 30 patients a Coflex device was additional implanted. Pre- and postoperatively disability and pain scores were measured using the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the Roland-Morris score (RMS), the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the pain-free walking distance (WD). Patients underwent postoperative assessments 3, 6 and 12 month including the above-mentioned scores as well as patient satisfaction. In both groups we could see a significant improve (p < 0.001) in the clinical outcome assessed in the ODI, in the RMS for evaluation of back pain, in the VAS and in the pain-free WD at all times of reinvestigation compared to base line. At 1-year follow up there were no statistically differences between both groups in all ascertained parameters including patient satisfaction and subjective operation decision. Because there is no current evidence of the efficacy of the Coflex device we need further data from randomized controlled studies for defining the indications for theses procedures. To the best of our knowledge this is the first prospective controlled study which compares surgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis with additional implanting of an interspinous Coflex device in the treatment of symptomatic LSS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19967546      PMCID: PMC2899813          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1229-9

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Dynamic interspinous process technology.

Authors:  Sean D Christie; John K Song; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Can a modified interspinous spacer prevent instability in axial rotation and lateral bending? A biomechanical in vitro study resulting in a new idea.

Authors:  A Kettler; J Drumm; F Heuer; K Haeussler; C Mack; L Claes; H-J Wilke
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; J Drumm; K Häussler; C Mack; W-I Steudel; A Kettler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The effects of health changes on projections of health service needs for the elderly population of the United States.

Authors:  B H Singer; K G Manton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-12-22       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

Authors:  Steven J Atlas; Robert B Keller; Yen A Wu; Richard A Deyo; Daniel E Singer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993.

Authors:  S M Mardjetko; P J Connolly; S Shott
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review.

Authors:  J N Alastair Gibson; Gordon Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Jangbo Lee; Kazutoshi Hida; Toshitaka Seki; Yoshinobu Iwasaki; Akino Minoru
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2004-02

9.  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

10.  [Fractures of the ischium after laminoarthrectomy. Retrospective study of a series of 31 patients].

Authors:  P Guigui; I Dessarts; G Morvan; M Benoist; B Lassale; A Deburge
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  1998-05
View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European spine journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European spine journal, 2015.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Siddarth M Shah; Yau Hong Ng; Vinodh Kumar Pannierselvam; Sudeep Dasde; Liang Shen
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-04-08

4.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

5.  IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Wilco C H Jacobs; Erik W van Zwet; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Bart W Koes; Carmen Lam Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Evaluation of the influence of pedicle-lengthening osteotomy on lumbar stability.

Authors:  Maofeng Gao; Jun Zou; Zhigang Zhang; Zongping Luo; Huilin Yang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2016-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

7.  Minimally invasive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Niels A Van der Gaag
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-09-22

8.  [Hybrid stabilization technique with spinal fusion and interlaminar device to reduce the length of fusion and to protect symptomatic adjacent segments : Clinical long-term follow-up].

Authors:  C Fleege; M Rickert; I Werner; M Rauschmann; M Arabmotlagh
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Ronald Brand; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

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.