Literature DB >> 20568923

Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device.

Christian Bowers1, Amin Amini, Andrew T Dailey, Meic H Schmidt.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The X-Stop interspinous device is designed for the treatment of patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. It distracts the posterior elements of adjacent vertebral bodies, unloading the intervertebral disc, limiting spinal extension, and improving central canal and neuroforaminal stenosis. In this paper, the authors reviewed the complications and failure/reoperation rates in a small series of patients and compared their results with other reported complication and failure/reoperation rates.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent placement of the X-Stop device for the treatment of NIC at the authors' institution were retrospectively evaluated, and demographic information, diagnosis, and preoperative pain levels were recorded. Postoperatively, patients subjectively graded the percentage (0-100%) of improvement in pain as well as the amount of residual pain and underwent imaging at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals. Approximately 4 years after X-Stop placement, information on long-term outcomes was obtained from patient medical records or additional follow-up.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients (8 men and 5 women) underwent placement of the X-Stop device. Central canal stenosis with bilateral foraminal stenosis was diagnosed in all patients: 9 (69%) of 13 had severe stenosis and 4 (31%) of 13 had moderate stenosis. Five patients (38%) also had associated Grade I spondylolisthesis. Nine patients underwent placement of the X-Stop device at the L4-5 interspinous space and 4 at both the L3-4 and L4-5 levels. The average duration of follow-up was 42.9 months (range 3-48 months). Initially, pain improved an average of 72% (range 50-100%) in these patients; however, preoperative pain returned in 77% of the patients (10 of 13). The overall complication rate was 38%, including 3 spinous process fractures (23%) and 2 instances of new-onset radiculopathy (15%). The ultimate failure rate requiring additional spinal surgery was 85% (11 of 13 patients). These complication and failure rates are much higher than those previously reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Overdistraction, poor bone density, poor patient selection, and preexistent adjacent foraminal stenosis may all be factors in the development of the aforementioned complications. Thus, careful attention should be paid preoperatively to adjacent-level disease, bone density, appropriate implant size, and optimal patient selection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20568923     DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  33 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.  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.  Biomechanical evaluation of the X-Stop device for surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Zongmiao Wan; Shaobai Wang; Michal Kozánek; Peter G Passias; Frederick L Mansfield; Kirkham B Wood; Guoan Li
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2012-10

Review 4.  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

5.  Morphometry of lumbar spinous process via three dimensional CT reconstruction in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Bo Ran; Qiang Li; Baoqing Yu; Xiangyang Chen; Kaijin Guo
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-01-15

6.  Dimensions of the spinous process and interspinous space: a morphometric study.

Authors:  Guang-Xun Lin; Tsz-King Suen; Javier Quillo-Olvera; Kutbuddin Akbary; Jung-Woo Hur; Eun Kim; Eun-Jin Park; Jin-Sung Kim
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 7.  Minimally invasive spine surgery: systematic review.

Authors:  Péter Banczerowski; Gábor Czigléczki; Zoltán Papp; Róbert Veres; Harry Zvi Rappaport; János Vajda
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 3.042

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.  Interspinous spacers for lumbar foraminal stenosis: formal trials are justified.

Authors:  Jeremy Hobart; Catherine Gilkes; William Adams; Tim Germon
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex).

Authors:  Cong Xu; Wen-Fei Ni; Nai-Feng Tian; Xu-Qi Hu; Fan Li; Hua-Zi Xu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.