Literature DB >> 20953966

Survivorship analysis of 150 consecutive patients with DIAM™ implantation for surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

Yoo-Joon Sur1, Chae-Gwan Kong, Jong-Beom Park.   

Abstract

Recently, the Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM™) has been introduced for surgery of degenerative lumbar disc diseases. The authors performed the current study to determine the survivorship of DIAM™ implantation for degenerative lumbar disc diseases and risk factors for reoperation. One hundred and fifty consecutive patients underwent laminectomy or discectomy with DIAM™ implantation for primary lumbar spinal stenosis or disc herniation. The characteristics of the 150 patients included the following: 84 males and 66 females; mean age at the time of surgery, 46.5 years; median value of follow-up, 23 months (range 1-48 months); 96 spinal stenosis and 54 disc herniations; and 146 one-level (115, L4-5; 31, L5-6) and 4 two-level (L4-5 and L5-6). In the current study, due to lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) L6 meant lumbarization of S1 and this had a prominent spinous process so that the DIAM™ was implanted at L5-6. Reoperations due to any reasons of the DIAM™ implantation level or adjacent levels were defined as a failure and used as the end point for determining survivorship. The cumulative reoperation rate and survival time were determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. The log-rank test and Cox regression model were used to evaluate the effect of age, gender, diagnosis, location, and level of DIAM™ implantation on the reoperation rate. During a 4-year follow-up, seven patients (two males and five female) underwent reoperation at the DIAM™ implantation level, giving a reoperation rate of 4.7%. However, no patients underwent reoperation for adjacent level complications. The causes of reoperation were recurrent spinal stenosis (n = 3), recurrent disc herniation (n = 2), post-laminectomy spondylolisthesis (n = 1), and delayed deep wound infection (n = 1). The mean time between primary operation and reoperation was 13.4 months (range 2-29 months). Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted an 8% cumulative reoperation rate 4 years post-operatively. Survival time was predicted to be 45.6 ± 0.9 months (mean ± standard deviation). Based on the log-rank test, the reoperation rate was higher at L5-6 (p = 0.002) and two-level (p = 0.01) DIAM™ implantation compared with L4-5 and one-level DIAM™ implantation. However, gender (p = 0.16), age (p = 0.41), and diagnosis (p = 0.67) did not significantly affect the reoperation rate of DIAM™ implantation. Based on a Cox regression model, L5-6 [hazard ratio (HR), 10.3; 95% CI, 1.7-63.0; p = 0.01] and two-level (HR, 10.4; 95% CI, 1.2-90.2; p = 0.04) DIAM™ implantation were also significant variables associated with a higher reoperation rate. Survival time was significantly lower in L5-6 (47 vs. 22 months, p = 0.002) and two-level DIAM™ implantation (46 vs. 18 months, p = 0.01) compared with L4-5 and one-level DIAM™ implantation. The current results suggest that 8% of the patients who have a DIAM™ implantation for primary lumbar spinal stenosis or disc herniation are expected to undergo reoperation at the same level within 4 years after surgery. Based on the limited data set, DIAM™ implantation at L5-6 and two-level in patients with LSTV are significant risk factors for reoperation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20953966      PMCID: PMC3030713          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1599-z

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


  29 in total

1.  The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Authors:  J N Katz; S J Lipson; M G Larson; J M McInnes; A H Fossel; M H Liang
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Imaging of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae.

Authors:  R J Hughes; A Saifuddin
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 3.  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

4.  Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Survival analysis is a better estimate of recurrent disc herniation.

Authors:  P Gaston; R W Marshall
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-05

6.  Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?

Authors:  Rolf Sobottke; Klaus Schlüter-Brust; Thomas Kaulhausen; Marc Röllinghoff; Britta Joswig; Hartmut Stützer; Peer Eysel; Patrick Simons; Johannes Kuchta
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Distribution and incidence of degenerative spine changes in patients with a lumbo-sacral transitional vertebra.

Authors:  S Vergauwen; P M Parizel; L van Breusegem; J W Van Goethem; Y Nackaerts; L Van den Hauwe; A M De Schepper
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Intervertebral disc degeneration associated with lumbosacral transitional vertebrae: a clinical and anatomical study.

Authors:  T Aihara; K Takahashi; A Ogasawara; E Itadera; Y Ono; H Moriya
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-05

9.  Are lumbar spine reoperation rates falling with greater use of fusion surgery and new surgical technology?

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Failure within one year following subtotal lumbar discectomy.

Authors:  Glenn D Wera; Randall E Marcus; Alexander J Ghanayem; Henry H Bohlman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  A decade's experience in lumbar spine surgery in Belgium: sickness fund beneficiaries, 2000-2009.

Authors:  Marc Du Bois; Marek Szpalski; Peter Donceel
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

4.  Biomechanical analysis of a new lumbar interspinous device with optimized topology.

Authors:  Chen-Sheng Chen; Shih-Liang Shih
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.

Authors:  Miguel Ángel Plasencia Arriba; Carmen Maestre; Fernando Martín-Gorroño; Paula Plasencia
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-31

6.  Clinical outcome following DIAM implantation for symptomatic lumbar internal disk disruption: a 3-year retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Kang Lu; Po-Chou Liliang; Hao-Kuang Wang; Jui-Sheng Chen; Te-Yuan Chen; Ruyi Huang; Han-Jung Chen
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Comment on "Controversies about Interspinous Process Devices in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases: Past, Present, and Future".

Authors:  Alessandro Landi; Fabrizio Gregori; Giovanni Grasso; Cristina Mancarella; Roberto Delfini
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Change of sagittal spinal alignment and its association with pain and function after lumbar surgery augmented with an interspinous implant.

Authors:  Rebecca J Crawford; Quentin J Malone; Roger I Price
Journal:  Scoliosis Spinal Disord       Date:  2017-01-30

Review 9.  Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ai-Min Wu; Yong Zhou; Qing-Long Li; Xin-Lei Wu; Yong-Long Jin; Peng Luo; Yong-Long Chi; Xiang-Yang Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comparison of the Pull-Out Strength between a Novel Micro-Dynamic Pedicle Screw and a Traditional Pedicle Screw in Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Lei Qian; Weidong Chen; Peng Li; Dongbin Qu; Wenjie Liang; Minghui Zheng; Jun Ouyang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-08-09       Impact factor: 2.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.