Literature DB >> 23725394

Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article.

Reginald Davis1, Joshua D Auerbach, Hyun Bae, Thomas J Errico.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF) has long been the standard of care for degenerative spondylolisthesis, but less invasive, motion-preserving alternatives have been proposed to reduce the complications associated with fusion while still providing neural decompression and stabilization. The object of the current study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of coflex Interlaminar Stabilization compared with PSF to treat low-grade spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis.
METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial comparing coflex Interlaminar Stabilization with laminectomy and PSF. A total of 322 patients from 21 sites in the US were enrolled between 2006 and 2008 for the IDE trial. The current study evaluated only the subset of patients from this overall cohort with Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (99 in the coflex group and 51 in the fusion group). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to receive decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilization or decompression and posterolateral spinal fusion with spinal instrumentation. Data collected included perioperative outcomes, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and worse leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and radiographic outcomes at a minimum of 2 years. The FDA criteria for overall device success required the following to be met: 15-point reduction in ODI, no reoperations, no major device-related complications, and no postoperative epidural injections.
RESULTS: At a minimum of 2 years, patient follow-up was 94.9% and 94.1% in the coflex and fusion control groups, respectively. There were no group differences at baseline for any demographic, clinical, or radiographic parameter. The average age was 63 years in the coflex cohort and 65 years in the fusion cohort. Coflex subjects experienced significantly shorter operative times (p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (p < 0.0001) than fusion controls. Both groups experienced significant improvements from baseline at 2 years in ODI, VAS back, VAS leg, and ZCQ, with no significant group differences, with the exception of significantly greater ZCQ satisfaction with coflex at 2 years. FDA overall success was achieved in 62.8% of coflex subjects (59 of 94) and 62.5% of fusion controls (30 of 48) (p = 1.000). The reoperation rate was higher in the coflex cohort (14 [14.1%] of 99) compared with fusion (3 [5.9%] of 51, p = 0.18), although this difference was not statistically significant. Fusion was associated with significantly greater angulation and translation at the superior and inferior adjacent levels compared with baseline, while coflex showed no significant radiographic changes at the operative or index levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade spondylolisthesis was effectively stabilized by coflex and led to similar clinical outcomes, with improved perioperative outcomes, compared with PSF at 2 years. Reoperation rates, however, were higher in the coflex cohort. Patients in the fusion cohort experienced significantly increased superior and inferior level angulation and translation, while those in the coflex cohort experienced no significant adjacent or index level radiographic changes from baseline. Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization is a less invasive, safe, and equally efficacious clinical solution to PSF to treat low-grade spondylolisthesis, and it appears to reduce stresses at the adjacent levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00534235 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23725394     DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  14 in total

1.  Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment.

Authors:  Hyun W Bae; Carl Lauryssen; Greg Maislin; Scott Leary; Michael J Musacchio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-05-11

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.  South Korean degenerative spondylolisthesis patients had surgical treatment at earlier age than Japanese, American, and European patients: a published literature observation.

Authors:  Zoltán Káplár; Yì-Xiáng J Wáng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-12

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

5.  The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Rachel B Simon; Christina Dowe; Samuel Grinberg; Frank P Cammisa; Celeste Abjornson
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-31

6.  Feasibility of Full Percutaneous Segmental Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine With a Combination of an Expandable Interbody Cage and an Interspinous Spacer: Preliminary Results.

Authors:  Rudolf Morgenstern; Christian Morgenstern
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12-21

7.  Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Jordana Kate Schmier; Marci Halevi; Greg Maislin; Kevin Ong
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2014-03-18

Review 8.  Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gustavo C Machado; Paulo H Ferreira; Ian A Harris; Marina B Pinheiro; Bart W Koes; Maurits van Tulder; Magdalena Rzewuska; Chris G Maher; Manuela L Ferreira
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Teng Lu; Yi Lu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 10.  Comparison of Decompression Alone Versus Decompression with Fusion for Stenotic Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Syed Ijlal Ahmed; Gohar Javed; Syeda Beenish Bareeqa; Ali Shah; Maha Zubair; Rabbia Faisal Avedia; Noor Rahman; Syeda Sana Samar; Kashif Aziz
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-08-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.