| Literature DB >> 23637678 |
Josh E Schroeder1, Leon Kaplan, Shimon Barzilay, Yair Barzilay.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 23637678 PMCID: PMC3621856 DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1267101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Spine Care J ISSN: 1663-7976
Fig. 1Patient sampling and selection. ISD indicates interspinous device; DIAM implant from Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Switzerland.
Demographic and baseline characteristics of procedure.
| N = 68 | |
|---|---|
| Age, y, mean ± SD | 57 ± 13 |
| Female | 34 (41%) |
| Decompression and ISD | 48 (70.5%) |
| ISD 1 level | 52 (76.4%) |
| ISD 2 levels | 15 (22 %) |
| ISD 3 levels | 1 |
| Spinal pathology | |
| – Radiculopathy | 12 |
| – Claudication | 56 |
| Comorbidities | |
| – Hypertension | 22 |
| – Ischemic heart disease | 14 |
| – Diabetes mellitus | 10 |
| – Hypothyroidism | 2 |
| – Asthma | 2 |
| Other | 3 |
Fig 2a–bX-rays of AP lumbar spine of a 78-year-old man before surgery. Severe degenerative changes are seen and instability at the L3/L4 intervertebral disc (2b).
Fig 3aA sagittal postoperative computed tomographic scan of the same patient indicating a fracture of the L4 spinous process between two DIAMs that were placed in the L3/4 and L4/5. Arrow indicates the fracture (the patient underwent decompression of these heights as well). b–c Axial view of the fracture height.
Fig 4a–bSagittal views of a magnetic resonance imaging showing recurrent spinal stenosis (arrows) after the fracture.
Time from surgery to complication.
| Complication | No. of patients | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Dural tear | 7 | 10.92 |
| Fracture of spinous process | 6 | 8.82 |
| Wound infection | 3 | 4.4 |
| Revision | 7 | 10.92 |
| Other complication | 3 | 4.4 |
Fig 5aX-ray of AP lumbar spine of the patient after a revision surgery; he had the DIAMs removed and underwent formal transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion L3–L5. His symptoms subsided. b Lateral view of the lumbar spine of the same patient after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion L3–L5.
Complications in relevant interspinous device studies.
| Study | No. of patient | Overall complication rate, % | Spinous process fracture rate, % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current study | 68 | 24 | 7.3 |
| Kondrashov et al | 18 | 22 | Not reported |
| Zucherman et al | 100 | 11 | 1 |
| Bowers et al | 13 | 38 | 23 |
| Barbagallo et al | 69 | 11.6 | 6 |
| Final Class of evidence (CoE)-treatment | Yes |
|---|---|
| Study design: | |
| RCT | |
| Cohort | |
| Case control | |
| Case series | • |
| Methods | |
| Concealed allocation (RCT) | |
| Intention to treat (RCT) | |
| Blinded/independent evaluation of primary outcome | |
| F/U ≥ 85% | • |
| Adequate sample size | • |
| Control for confounding | |
| IV | |