Literature DB >> 21311406

Implant survival analysis and failure modes of the X-Stop interspinous distraction device.

Alexander Tuschel1, Albert Chavanne, Claudia Eder, Michael Meissl, Philipp Becker, Michael Ogon.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical outcome, implant survivorship and reasons for failure after X-Stop implantation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Conflicting data exist concerning clinical outcome of the X-Stop interspinous spacer and little information is being published about implant survivorship and the need for revision surgery.
METHODS: This retrospective review evaluated 46 patients who underwent implantation of the X-Stop interspinous spacer for the treatment of neurogenic claudication. After a mean follow-up of 40 months, pain levels, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the need for subsequent surgery were assessed and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Within the follow-up period, the revision rate was found to be 30.4%. Lack of improvement at 6-week follow-up correlated well with subsequent revision surgery, which predominantly took place within 12 months after the index surgery. In patients who did not need to undergo revision surgery, clinical outcome parameters improved significantly. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis predicted an implant survival probability of 0.68 at 48 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: Clinical outcome after X-Stop implantation might be considerably less favorable than when it was being published previously. Patient selection might be a reason for early revision surgery. More criteria for better X-Stop indications might be needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 21311406     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820b86e1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  6 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gelalis; Dimitrios V Papadopoulos; Dionysios K Giannoulis; Andreas G Tsantes; Anastasios V Korompilias
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-10-06

3.  Grade 1 spondylolisthesis and interspinous device placement: removal in six patients and analysis of current data.

Authors:  Parker E Bohm; Karen K Anderson; Elizabeth A Friis; Paul M Arnold
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-04-02

4.  The cost effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy.

Authors:  Mohsen Yaghoubi; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Mohammad Moradi-Joo; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Neda Zamani; Ahmad Naghibzadeh-Tahami
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-03-06

5.  Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion.

Authors:  Daniel J Cher; Melissa A Frasco; Renée Jg Arnold; David W Polly
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-12-18

Review 6.  Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Roberto Gazzeri; Marcelo Galarza; Alex Alfieri
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.