Literature DB >> 22549123

Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Alex Alfieri1, Roberto Gazzeri, Julian Prell, Christian Scheller, Jens Rachinger, Christian Strauss, Andreas Schwarz.   

Abstract

The interspinous distraction devices are used to treat variable pathologies ranging from facet syndrome, diskogenic low back pain, degenerative spinal stenosis, diskopathy, spondylolisthesis, and instability. The insertion of a posterior element with an interspinous device (ISD) is commonly judged responsive to a relative kyphosis of a lumbar segment with a moderate but persistent increase of the spinal canal and of the foraminal width and area, and without influence on low-grade spondylolisthesis. The consequence is the need of shared specific biomechanical concepts to give for each degenerative problem the right indication through a critical analysis of all available experimental and clinical biomechanical data. We reviewed systematically the available clinical and experimental data about kyphosis, enlargement of the spinal canal, distraction of the interspinous distance, increase of the neural foramina, ligamentous structures, load of the posterior annulus, intradiskal pressure, strength of the spinous processes, degeneration of the adjacent segment, complications, and cost-effectiveness of the ISD. The existing literature does not provide actual scientific evidence over the superiority of the ISD strategy, but most of the experimental and clinical data show a challenging potential. These considerations are applicable with different types of ISD with only few differences between the different categories. Despite--or because of--the low invasiveness of the surgical implantation of the ISD, this technique promises to play a major role in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. The main indications for ISD remain lumbar spinal stenoses and painful facet arthroses. A clear documented contraindication is the presence of an anterolisthesis. Nevertheless, the existing literature does not provide evidence of superiority of outcome and cost-effectiveness of the ISD strategy over laminectomy or other surgical procedures. At this time, the devices should be used in clinical randomized independent trials in order to obtain more information concerning the most advantageous optimal indication or, in selected cases, to treat tailored indications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22549123     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-012-0394-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  103 in total

1.  A continuous pure moment loading apparatus for biomechanical testing of multi-segment spine specimens.

Authors:  J T Lysack; J P Dickey; G A Dumas; D Yen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 2.  The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-09-05       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Effect of lumbar interbody cage geometry on construct stability: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Sasidhar Vadapalli; Matt Robon; Ashok Biyani; Koichi Sairyo; Ashutosh Khandha; Vijay K Goel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  A light and electron microscopic study of spinal ligament innervation.

Authors:  H Yahia; N Newman
Journal:  Z Mikrosk Anat Forsch       Date:  1989

5.  The resistance to flexion of the lumbar intervertebral joint.

Authors:  M A Adams; W C Hutton; J R Stott
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1980 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  An anatomic basis for spinal instability: a porcine trauma model.

Authors:  T R Oxland; M M Panjabi; E P Southern; J S Duranceau
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.494

7.  Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Harry Herkowitz; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Keith Bridwell; Michael Longley; Gunnar B Andersson; Emily A Blood; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Ultrastructure of the human interspinous ligament and ligamentum flavum. A preliminary study.

Authors:  L H Yahia; S Garzon; H Strykowski; C H Rivard
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Thomas Repantis; Spyros Zacharatos; Andreas Zafiropoulos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Outcome after chronic sciatica as the only reason for lumbar microdiscectomy.

Authors:  A Schoeggl; H Maier; W Saringer; M Reddy; C Matula
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2002-10
View more
  8 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.  Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Combined With an Interspinous Process Distraction System for Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Carolina Ramírez Martínez; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz; Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

4.  Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Prashanth J Rao; Jonathon R Ball; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-03

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ai-Min Wu; Yong Zhou; Qing-Long Li; Xin-Lei Wu; Yong-Long Jin; Peng Luo; Yong-Long Chi; Xiang-Yang Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Jennifer Tram; Shanmukha Srinivas; Arvin R Wali; Courtney S Lewis; Martin H Pham
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2020-01-08

Review 8.  Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Tang-Fen Liu; Hua Shan; Zhong-Yuan Wan; Zhe Wang; Omar Viswanath; Antonella Paladini; Giustino Varrassi; Hai-Qiang Wang
Journal:  Pain Ther       Date:  2021-07-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.