Literature DB >> 22643187

Two-year follow-up after decompressive surgery with and without implantation of an interspinous device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective controlled study.

Alexander Richter1, Henry F H Halm, Michael Hauck, Markus Quante.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Two-arm prospective controlled study.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to prospectively assess the outcome of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treated with decompressive surgery alone in comparison with additional implantation of the Coflex interspinous device. SUMMARY OF BACKROUND DATA: In symptomatic LSS, decompression surgery is an established treatment. Recently, a number of interspinous devices have been introduced as an alternative to conventional surgical procedures. The theoretical aim of the Coflex device is to unload the facet joints, restore foraminal height, and provide stability to improve the clinical outcome. Published information is limited, and there are no data that prove the superiority of the implant in comparison with traditional surgical approaches.
METHODS: Sixty-two patients with symptomatic LSS were treated with decompressive surgery; 31 of these patients received an additional Coflex device. Preoperatively and postoperatively, disability and pain scores were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Visual Analog Scale, and the pain-free walking distance. Patients underwent postoperative assessments at 3, 6, 12, and 24 month including the above-mentioned scores and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: There was a significant improvement (P<0.001) in the clinical outcome assessed in the Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Visual Analog Scale, and the pain-free walking distance at all times of reinvestigation compared with the base line in both groups. Up to 2 years after surgery, there were no significant differences between both groups in all ascertained parameters, including the patient satisfaction and subjective operation decision.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this first prospective controlled study indicate that the additional placement of a Coflex interspinous device does not improve the already good clinical outcome after decompressive surgery for LSS in the 24-month follow-up interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 22643187     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825f7203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  11 in total

1.  Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Michael J Musacchio; Carl Lauryssen; Reginald J Davis; Hyun W Bae; John H Peloza; Richard D Guyer; Jack E Zigler; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Scott Leary
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-01-26

2.  IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Wilco C H Jacobs; Erik W van Zwet; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Bart W Koes; Carmen Lam Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Posterior dynamic stabilization in the lumbar spine - 24 months results of a prospective clinical and radiological study with an interspinous distraction device.

Authors:  Dorothea Daentzer; Christof Hurschler; Frank Seehaus; Christine Noll; Michael Schwarze
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Wilco C H Jacobs; Erik W van Zwet; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Bart W Koes; Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-11-14

Review 9.  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

10.  Length of stay, costs, and complications in lumbar disc herniation surgery by standard PLIF versus a new dynamic interspinous stabilization technique.

Authors:  Manuel Segura-Trepichio; David Candela-Zaplana; José Manuel Montoza-Nuñez; Antonio Martin-Benlloch; Andreu Nolasco
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2017-11-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.