Literature DB >> 21153010

[Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer].

Christoph J Siepe1, Franziska Heider, Rudolf Beisse, H Michael Mayer, Andreas Korge.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Indirect decompression of the spinal canal and the neuroforamina by means of interspinous process distraction and limitation of extension movements. Reduction of forces acting on the posterior joint structures of a functional spinal unit (posterior anulus, facet joints, intervertebral discs). INDICATIONS: Primary indication: Spinal claudication with improvement of the clinical symptomatology upon taking an inclined position. Secondary indication: Low back pain in the presence of accompanying retrolisthesis. Hyperlordosis Facet joint complaints Annulus lesions with high intensity zones (HIZ) M. Baastrup ("kissing spine"). Adjacent segment preservation (e.g. prophylaxis of recurrent disc herniation after discectomy or topping-off following previous fusion). CONTRAINDICATIONS: Spinal instabilities which prohibit a solid fixation of the implant (e.g. spondylolysis, isthmus fractures, condition following previous (hemi-) laminectomy) Degenerative spondylolisthesis ffl 1st degree. Severe structural narrowing of the spinal canal. Absent dynamic aspect without improvement upon inclination, segmental ankylosis. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Positioning of the patient in an inclined position. Approximately 4 cm median skin incision, bilateral access with preservation of the supraspinous ligament. Perforation of the interspinous ligament. Following interspinous distraction the adequate size implant is established. Insertion of the interspinous process distraction device (IPD) unit and fixation of the mobile wing unit from the contralateral side. Medial positioning and solid fixation of the implant by connecting the two implant units. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Lumbar orthosis (optional), otherwise no further support required. Daily living activities immediately after the operation. Physiotherapeutic exercises (optional). Low impact sporting activities from 2nd week after operation, intense/ high impact sporting activities from 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Previous studies have reported satisfactory results for interspinous distraction devices for the treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis. However, the majority of these previously published studies are based on data with only shortterm follow-up or small patient numbers. In particular, the results of interspinous spacers for the treatment of different indications have not been evaluated separately. Complications and long-term results still need to be established.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21153010     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-010-9042-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  24 in total

1.  The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures.

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

Review 2.  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

3.  Loading is more effective than posture in lumbar spinal stenosis: a study with a treadmill equipment.

Authors:  Hasan Oğuz; Funda Levendoğlu; Tunç Cevat Oğün; Aysenur Tantuğ
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results.

Authors:  James F Zucherman; Ken Y Hsu; Charles A Hartjen; Thomas F Mehalic; Dante A Implicito; Michael J Martin; Donald R Johnson; Grant A Skidmore; Paul P Vessa; James W Dwyer; Stephen T Puccio; Joseph C Cauthen; Richard M Ozuna
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  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

Review 6.  Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature.

Authors:  Giuseppe M V Barbagallo; Giuseppe Olindo; Leonardo Corbino; Vincenzo Albanese
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Stress fracture of bilateral posterior facet after insertion of interspinous implant.

Authors:  Kook Jin Chung; Yoon Sub Hwang; Sung Hye Koh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Interspinous process spacers.

Authors:  David H Kim; Todd J Albert
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.020

9.  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

10.  High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Olaf J Verhoof; Johannes L Bron; Frits H Wapstra; Barend J van Royen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  1 in total

1.  Posterior Arch Augmentation (Spinoplasty) before and after Single and Double Interspinous Spacer Introduction at the Same Level: Preventing and Treating the Failure?

Authors:  Luigi Manfré
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 1.610

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.