Literature DB >> 21343860

Occult spinous process fractures associated with interspinous process spacers.

David H Kim1, Mark Tantorski, Jeremy Shaw, Juli Martha, Ling Li, Nael Shanti, Tal Rencu, Stephen Parazin, Brian Kwon.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a more accurate estimate of the rate of acute spinous process fractures associated with IPS surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Biomechanical cadaveric studies have suggested adequate spinous process strength to support placement of interspinous process spacers (IPS). Postoperative spinous process fractures have been reported in one%-to 5.8% of patients in previous series based on routine biplanar radiographic evaluation. However, most fractures occur between the base and midportion of the spinous process in an area that is typically difficult to visualize on plain radiographs due to device design.
METHODS: All patients underwent preoperative biplanar plain radiographs and computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine to confirm anatomy favorable for IPS placement and rule out fracture or spondylolysis. Postoperatively, all patients underwent repeat CT imaging within six months of surgery, biplanar radiographs at two weeks, six weeks, three months, six months, and one year. All studies were reviewed independently by a neuroradiologist and two orthopedic spine surgeons.
RESULTS: Fifty implants (38 L4-5, 12 L3-4) were placed in 38 patients who completed follow-up and were included in final analysis. Three IPS designs were included (34 Medtronic X-STOP titanium, 8 X-STOP PEEK, 8 Lanx Aspen). Postoperative CT revealed 11 nondisplaced spinous process fractures in 11 patients (28.9% of patients, 22% of levels). Five fractures were associated with mild to moderate lumbar back pain and six fractures were asymptomatic. No patient reported a traumatic incident. No fracture was identifiable on plain radiographs. One fracture displaced during follow-up evaluation. Three patients underwent IPS removal and laminectomy. Three fractures healed by CT in one year. Overall, patients with fractures tended toward poorer outcomes by Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) (28.5% vs. 34.8% improvement in symptom severity, P = 0.496; 21.4% vs. 30.7% improvement in physical function, P = 0.199) and tended toward lower satisfaction rates (50% vs. 73.7%, P = 0.24) at one year compared to patients without fracture.
CONCLUSION: Interspinous process spacer surgery appears associated with a higher rate of early postoperative spinous process fracture than previously reported. In all cases, in this series, plain radiographs were inadequate to identify fractures because all fractures were initially minimal or nondisplaced, many patients were osteopenic, and the metallic wings of the devices often obscured fractures. Moreover, in most patients, fractures were associated with mild or no acute localized pain. This study suggests that unrecognized spinous process fracture may be responsible for a significant number of patients who experience unsatisfactory outcome after IPS surgery. CT imaging is required to identify the vast majority of such fractures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21343860     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318204066a

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


  19 in total

1.  Motion characteristics of the lumbar spinous processes with degenerative disc disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Qi Yao; Shaobai Wang; Jae-Hyuk Shin; Guoan Li; Kirkham Wood
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  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

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.  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

5.  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

Review 6.  Osteoporosis and the Management of Spinal Degenerative Disease (I).

Authors:  Félix Tomé-Bermejo; Angel R Piñera; Luis Alvarez-Galovich
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2017-09

7.  Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Brook I Martin; Alex Ching; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeffrey G Jarvik; William Kreuter; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Preliminary efficacy of inter-spinal distraction fusion which is a new technique for lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Hongyu Wei; Hai Tang; Tidong Zhang; Hao Chen; Chunke Dong
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Clinical evaluation of the preliminary safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive interspinous process device APERIUS(®) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with symptomatic neurogenic intermittent claudication.

Authors:  Jan Van Meirhaeghe; Patrick Fransen; Daniele Morelli; Niall J A Craig; Gregor Godde; Attila Mihalyi; Frederic Collignon
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microdecompression and interspinous distraction device insertion. A case series.

Authors:  Avraam Ploumis; Pavlos Christodoulou; Dimitrios Kapoutsis; Ioannis Gelalis; Vasilios Vraggalas; Alexander Beris
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.