Literature DB >> 21404029

Critical analysis of lumbar interspinous devices failures: a retrospective study.

Francesco Ciro Tamburrelli1, Luca Proietti, Carlo Ambrogio Logroscino.   

Abstract

Interspinous devices (IDs) were introduced in the 90s. Since then, they have rapidly become very popular for the minimally invasive treatment of lumbar pain disorders. They feature different shapes and biomechanical characteristics, and are used in the spine degenerative pathologies or as motion segment stabilizers (dynamic stabilization) or to obtain the decompression of neurological structures. The indications seem to be rather narrow and still to be verified in terms of their clinical efficacy. However, IDs are being extensively utilized beyond their classical indications with the inevitable risk of a clinical failure. The aim of the present work was to carry out a critical analysis of the causes of failure in a series of 19 patients. From January 2007 to March 2009, 19 patients with residual painful syndrome after the implantation of IDs were observed. The series includes 11 males and 8 females with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 38-84 years) who were operated on elsewhere and who underwent revision surgery at our hospital. The inclusion criteria were low back pain and/or radiculopathy after the device implantation without improvement of the painful symptomatology, radiculopathy with signs of sensory and motor deficit, intermittent neurogenic claudication, and infection. All patients were thoroughly re-assessed with new standard imaging examinations such as MRI and CT scans, considering the following image features: the position of the device with respect to the spinous processes (X-ray), the intervertebral disc disease of the level operated upon or of the adjacent levels (MRI), the segmental instability (dynamic X-rays), the severity of the canal stenosis (CT). The accurate evaluation of the clinical and imaging parameters revealed three main causes of failure: errors of indication, technical errors and the structural failure of the ID. The most frequent cause of failure was a wrong indication. The results of the study are presented and the causes of failure are discussed in detail.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21404029      PMCID: PMC3087036          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1763-0

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


  9 in total

1.  Foreign body reaction due to polyethylene's wear after implantation of an interspinal segment.

Authors:  Joerg Jerosch; Mohammed G Moursi
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Effect of a novel interspinous implant on lumbar spinal range of motion.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski; Stuart A Callary; Christopher J Colloca; Victor Kosmopoulos; Deed Harrison; Robert J Moore
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The effect of flexion-extension motion of the lumbar spine on the capacity of the spinal canal. An experimental study.

Authors:  L Y Dai; Y K Xu; W M Zhang; Z H Zhou
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy.

Authors:  Frank M Phillips; Leonard I Voronov; Ioannis N Gaitanis; Gerard Carandang; Robert M Havey; Avinash G Patwardhan
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

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.  Long-term actuarial survivorship analysis of an interspinous stabilization system.

Authors:  Jacques Sénégas; Jean-Marc Vital; Vincent Pointillart; Paolo Mangione
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-04-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

9.  Failure of the Wallis interspinous implant to lower the incidence of recurrent lumbar disc herniations in patients undergoing primary disc excision.

Authors:  Yizhar Floman; Michael A Millgram; Yossi Smorgick; Nahshon Rand; Ely Ashkenazi
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2007-07
  9 in total
  11 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.  Elastic resistance of the spine: Why does motion preservation surgery almost fail?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Characterization of the behavior of a novel low-stiffness posterior spinal implant under anterior shear loading on a degenerative spinal model.

Authors:  Angela D Melnyk; Jason D Chak; Vaneet Singh; Adrienne Kelly; Peter A Cripton; Charles G Fisher; Marcel F Dvorak; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  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 5.  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

6.  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 7.  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

8.  An evaluation of the host response to an interspinous process device based on a series of spine explants: Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM®).

Authors:  Jeffrey M Toth; Justin D Bric
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-12

9.  Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases.

Authors:  Cheng-Yu Li; Mao-Yu Chen; Chen-Nen Chang; Jiun-Lin Yan
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 2.430

10.  The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after the Use of a Versatile Dynamic Hybrid Stabilization Device in Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a 5-8-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Mauro Dobran; Davide Nasi; Domenico Paolo Esposito; Maurizio Gladi; Massimo Scerrati; Maurizio Iacoangeli
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-04-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.