Literature DB >> 21132610

Clinical outcomes and quality of life 1 year after open microsurgical decompression or implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer.

R Sobottke1, M Röllinghoff, J Siewe, U Schlegel, A Yagdiran, M Spangenberg, R Lesch, P Eysel, T Koy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interspinous stand-alone implants are inserted without open decompression to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The insertion procedure is technically simple, low-risk, and quick. However, the question remains whether the resulting clinical outcomes compare with those of microsurgical decompression, the gold standard.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective, comparative study included all patients (n=36) with neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) secondary to LSS with symptoms improving in forward flexion treated operatively with either interspinous stand-alone spacer insertion (Aperius (®); Medtronic, Tolochenaz, Switzerland) (group 1) or microsurgical bilateral operative decompression (group 2) between February 2007 and November 2008. Data (patient data, operative data, COMI, SF-36 PCS and MCS, ODI, and walking tolerance) were collected preoperatively as well as at 6 weeks, at 3, 6, and 9 months, and at one year follow-up (FU). All patients had complete FU over 1 year.
RESULTS: Compared to preoperative measurements, surgery led to improvements of all parameters in the entire collective as well as both individual groups. There were no statistically relevant differences between the 2 groups over the entire course of FU. However, improvements in the ODI and SF-36 MCS were not significant in group 1, in contrast to those of group 2. Also, although in group 1 the improvements in leg pain (VAS leg) were still significant (p<0.05) at 6 months, this was no longer the case at 1 year FU. In group 1 at 1 year FU an increase in leg pain was observed, while in group 2,  minimal improvements continued. Walking tolerance was significantly improved at all FU times compared to preoperatively, regardless of group (p<0.01). At no time there was a significant difference between the groups. In group 1, admission and operative times were shorter and blood loss decreased. The complication rate was 0% in group 1 and 20% in group 2, however reoperation was required by 27.3% of group 1 patients and 0% of group 2.
CONCLUSION: Implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer yields clinical success comparable to open decompression, at least within the first year of FU. The 1-year conversion rate of 27.3% is, however, decidedly too high. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21132610     DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1263108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg        ISSN: 0946-7211


  13 in total

Review 1.  Aperius interspinous device for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a review.

Authors:  Ashwanth Ramesh; Frank Lyons; Michael Kelleher
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.042

2.  The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christoph Schilling; M Pfeiffer; T M Grupp; W Blömer; A Rohlmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Cochrane in CORR ®: Surgical Versus Non-surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Ilyas S Aleem; Brian Drew
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

Authors:  O M Stokes; A A Cole; L M Breakwell; A J Lloyd; C M Leonard; M Grevitt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life.

Authors:  F Beyer; A Yagdiran; P Neu; T Kaulhausen; P Eysel; R Sobottke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Mao Li; Huilin Yang; Genlin Wang
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 7.  The effectiveness of land based exercise compared to decompressive surgery in the management of lumbar spinal-canal stenosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mark S Jarrett; Joseph F Orlando; Karen Grimmer-Somers
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 8.  Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arthur Werner Poetscher; Andre Felix Gentil; Mario Ferretti; Mario Lenza
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nikhil R Nayak; James H Stephen; Matthew A Piazza; Adetokunbo A Obayemi; Sherman C Stein; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-07-29

Review 10.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Fabio Zaina; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Eugene Carragee; Stefano Negrini
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.