Literature DB >> 23892467

Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex).

Cong Xu1, Wen-Fei Ni, Nai-Feng Tian, Xu-Qi Hu, Fan Li, Hua-Zi Xu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the intra- and postoperative complications of an interspinous process device (Coflex) in managing degenerative lumbar diseases and to investigate corresponding therapeutic strategies.
METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2012, we retrospectively analysed a total of 131 patients who underwent decompressive surgery along with the Coflex system for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The related complications were reported, and appropriate measures were taken. Clinical outcomes and radiological data were collected and analysed, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with paired-samples T test.
RESULTS: Related complications occurred in 11 patients. Among them, six cases were found with surgical technique-related complications, including device-related complications in three cases: spinal process fracture (n = 1), Coflex loosening (n = 1), fixed-wing breakage (n = 1), dura mater tear in two cases and superficial wound infection in one case. All of them received corresponding conservative treatment and obtained a good result. The other five cases had non-device-related complications and required additional spinal surgery. The conservative therapy group had apparent improvement of VAS score and ODI, and remained well to final follow-up (P < 0.05). The second operation group also improved postoperatively (each P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The Coflex dynamic interspinous process device shows a low complication and re-operation rate. Standard operation and strict follow-up observation can effectively avoid surgical technique-related complications. The key points to ensure surgical effect and to reduce non-device-related complications are mastering surgical indications and thorough intra-operative decompression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23892467      PMCID: PMC3824901          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2006-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  26 in total

1.  The use of an interspinous implant in conjunction with a graded facetectomy procedure.

Authors:  Paul D Fuchs; Derek P Lindsey; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Vinod K Podichetty; John Spears; Robert E Isaacs; John Booher; Robert S Biscup
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2006-05

3.  Recurrence after successful percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy.

Authors:  J M Kim; S H Lee; Y Ahn; D H Yoon; C D Lee; S T Lim
Journal:  Minim Invasive Neurosurg       Date:  2007-04

Review 4.  Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Christopher M Bono; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2007-05

5.  Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous u (coflex).

Authors:  Seong-Cheol Park; Sang Hoon Yoon; Yong-Pyo Hong; Ki-Jeong Kim; Sang-Ki Chung; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-10-31

6.  Obesity increases the risk of recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus after lumbar microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Dennis S Meredith; Russel C Huang; Joseph Nguyen; Stephen Lyman
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions.

Authors:  J D Schlegel; J A Smith; R L Schleusener
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Experience with coflex interspinous implant.

Authors:  F Villarejo; F Carceller; A Gómez de la Riva; M Budke
Journal:  Acta Neurochir Suppl       Date:  2011

Review 9.  Lumbar interspinous spacers: a systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence.

Authors:  Syed M R Kabir; Sanjay R Gupta; Adrian T H Casey
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Survivorship of coflex Interlaminar-Interspinous Implant.

Authors:  Thomas J Errico; Jonathan R Kamerlink; Martin Quirno; Jacques Samani; Robert J Chomiak
Journal:  SAS J       Date:  2009-06-01
View more
  11 in total

1.  Dimensions of the spinous process and interspinous space: a morphometric study.

Authors:  Guang-Xun Lin; Tsz-King Suen; Javier Quillo-Olvera; Kutbuddin Akbary; Jung-Woo Hur; Eun Kim; Eun-Jin Park; Jin-Sung Kim
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Interspinous posterior devices: What is the real surgical indication?

Authors:  Alessandro Landi
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 3.  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

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.  Preliminary efficacy of inter-spinal distraction fusion which is a new technique for lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Hongyu Wei; Hai Tang; Tidong Zhang; Hao Chen; Chunke Dong
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Burden of Surgical Site Infections Associated with Select Spine Operations and Involvement of Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Harshila Patel; Hanane Khoury; Douglas Girgenti; Sharon Welner; Holly Yu
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 2.150

7.  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

8.  Effect of different designs of interspinous process devices on the instrumented and adjacent levels after double-level lumbar decompression surgery: A finite element analysis.

Authors:  Hao-Ju Lo; Hung-Ming Chen; Yi-Jie Kuo; Sai-Wei Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A Radiological Evaluation of Lumbar Spinous Processes and Interspinous Spaces, Including Clinical Implications.

Authors:  Dicle Kaya Ayvaz; Piraye Kervancıoğlu; Ayşe Bahşi; İlhan Bahşi
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-11-10

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.