Literature DB >> 21676166

Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression mild(®) for spinal stenosis.

Nagy Mekhail1, Ricardo Vallejo, Mark H Coleman, Ramsin M Benyamin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) generally occurs from a combination of degenerative changes occurring in the lumbar spine. These include hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum, facet joint arthritic changes and bulging of the intervertebral disk. Spinal stenosis leads to compression of the lumbar neural elements (cauda equina), which manifests as low back and leg pain especially on standing and walking known as "neurogenic claudication." Current treatment options for LSS are varied. Conservative management, including physical therapy with/without epidural steroid injections, may be adequate for mild stenosis. Surgical decompression is reserved for severe cases and results in variable degrees of success. Patients with moderate-to-severe LSS having ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as a key contributor are generally inappropriately treated or undertreated. This is due to ineffectiveness of conservative therapy and possibility that major surgical compression might be too aggressive. Percutaneous decompression offers a possible solution for this patient population.
METHODS: One-year follow-up study was conducted at 11 U.S. sites. Study cohort included 58 mild(®) percutaneous decompression patients who underwent 170 procedures, the majority treated bilaterally at one or two lumbar levels. Outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and SF-12v2(®) Health Survey.
RESULTS: No major mild(®) device or procedure-related complications were reported. One-year data showed significant reduction of pain as measured by VAS. Improvement in physical functionality, mobility, and disability was significant as measured by ZCQ, SF-12v2, and ODI.
CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year this 58-patient cohort demonstrated continued excellent safety profile of the mild(®) procedure and equally important, showed long-term pain relief and improved functionality.
© 2011 The Authors. Pain Practice © 2011 World Institute of Pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21676166     DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00481.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Pract        ISSN: 1530-7085            Impact factor:   3.183


  8 in total

1.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Jay S Grider; Jason E Pope; Tim J Lamer; Sayed E Wahezi; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Steven Falowski; Reda Tolba; Jay M Shah; Natalie Strand; Alex Escobar; Mark Malinowski; Anjum Bux; Navdeep Jassal; Jennifer Hah; Jacqueline Weisbein; Nestor D Tomycz; Jessica Jameson; Erika A Petersen; Dawood Sayed
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.832

Review 3.  Spinal Cord Stimulation, MILD Procedure, and Regenerative Medicine, Novel Interventional Nonopioid Therapies in Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Ken P Ehrhardt; Susan M Mothersele; Andrew J Brunk; Jeremy B Green; Mark R Jones; Craig B Billeaud; Alan David Kaye
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2018-03-19

Review 4.  The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Nagy Mekhail; Shrif Costandi; George Nageeb; Catherine Ekladios; Ogena Saied
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.079

6.  The Impact of Age on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Nagy A Mekhail; Shrif J Costandi; Sherif Armanyous; Ricardo Vallejo; Lawrence R Poree; Lora L Brown; Stanley Golovac; Timothy R Deer
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2020-06-04

7.  The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results.

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Shrif J Costandi; Edward Washabaugh; Timothy B Chafin; Sayed E Wahezi; Navdeep Jassal; Dawood Sayed
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 3.750

8.  A double-blind, randomized controlled, prospective trial assessing the effectiveness of oral corticoids in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis.

Authors:  Luiz Claudio L Rodrigues; Jamil Natour
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2014-08-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.