Literature DB >> 22274971

Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height?

Haydar Celik1, Alihan Derincek, Ismet Koksal.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of implantation of interspinous device is to unload the facet joints, restore foraminal height and provide stability in order to improve the clinical outcome of surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: After microsurgical decompression, Coflex™ device was applied. Patients were evaluated at a month after surgery and last follow-up using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Foraminal height and lumbar lordosis angle were recorded.
RESULTS: The mean preoperative VAS was 7.85 and fell to 1.7 a month after surgery (p < 0.0001). At the last follow-up the mean VAS score was 1.65 (p < 0.0001). The mean foraminal heights were measured 19.95 mm preoperatively and 25.05 mm a month after surgery (p < 0.0001). The mean foraminal height was 21.60 mm at the last follow-up (p=0.002). The mean lumbar lordosis were measured 32.05 and 34.3 degrees at preoperative and a month after surgery respectively (p=0.155). The mean lumbar lordosis was 32 (±5.99) degrees at the last follow-up (p=0.974).
CONCLUSION: Using the Coflex device is a minimal invasive, effective and safe procedure. Restoration of the foraminal height may not be a responsible factor for clinical improvement. We think microsurgical decompression looks responsible of the good clinical outcome and using interspinous device is unnecessary. Comparative clinical studies can be informative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22274971     DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.4681-11.2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk Neurosurg        ISSN: 1019-5149            Impact factor:   1.003


  7 in total

1.  Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Siddarth M Shah; Yau Hong Ng; Vinodh Kumar Pannierselvam; Sudeep Dasde; Liang Shen
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-04-08

2.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

3.  Interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion versus double-segment fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum follow-up of three years.

Authors:  Xiao-Long Chen; Li Guan; Yu-Zeng Liu; Jin-Cai Yang; Wen-Long Wang; Yong Hai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.

Authors:  C Röder; B Baumgärtner; U Berlemann; E Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-18       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging on disc degeneration changes after implantation of an interspinous spacer and fusion of the adjacent segment.

Authors:  Xiaokang Liu; Yingjie Liu; Xiaofeng Lian; Jianguang Xu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-04-15

Review 6.  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

7.  Spinal Stenosis in the Absence of Spondylolisthesis: Can Interlaminar Stabilization at Single and Multi-levels Provide Sustainable Relief?

Authors:  Celeste Abjornson; Byung-Jo Victor Yoon; Tucker Callanan; Daniel Shein; Samuel Grinberg; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03-30
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.