Literature DB >> 24291409

Interspinous device versus laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative effectiveness study.

Chirag G Patil1, J Manuel Sarmiento2, Beatrice Ugiliweneza3, Debraj Mukherjee2, Miriam Nuño2, John C Liu2, Sartaaj Walia2, Shivanand P Lad4, Maxwell Boakye5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Currently no studies directly compare effectiveness between interspinous devices (IDs) and laminectomy in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients.
PURPOSE: To compare reoperations, complications, and costs between LSS patients undergoing ID placement versus laminectomy. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The MarketScan database (2007-2009) was queried for adults with LSS undergoing ID placement as a primary inpatient procedure. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation rates, complication rates, and costs.
METHODS: Each ID patient was matched with a laminectomy patient using propensity score matching. Reoperations, complications, and costs were analyzed in patients with at least 18 months postoperative follow-up. The authors did not receive funding from any external sources for this study.
RESULTS: Among 498 inpatients that underwent ID placement between 2007 and 2009; the average age was 73 years. The cumulative reoperation rates after ID at 12 and 18 months were 21% and 23%, respectively. The average inpatient hospitalization lasted 1.6 days with an associated cost of $17,432. Two propensity-matched cohorts of 174 patients that had undergone ID versus laminectomy were analyzed. Longer length of stay was observed in the laminectomy cohort (2.5 days vs. 1.6 days, p<.0001), whereas ID patients accrued higher costs at index hospitalization ($17,674 vs. $12,670, p=.0001). Index hospitalization (7.5% vs. 3.5%, p=.099) and 90-day (9.2% vs. 3.5%, p=.028) complications were higher in the laminectomy cohort compared with the ID cohort. The ID patients had significantly higher reoperation rates than laminectomy patients at 12 months follow-up (12.6% vs. 5.8%, p=.026) and incurred higher cumulative costs than laminectomy patients at 12 months follow-up ($39,173 vs. $34,324, p=.289).
CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-month reoperation rates and index hospitalization costs were significantly higher among patients who underwent ID compared with laminectomy for LSS.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decompressive surgery; Interspinous device; Laminectomy; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Neurogenic claudication; Reoperation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24291409     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  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

Review 2.  Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review.

Authors:  Michael Pintauro; Alexander Duffy; Payman Vahedi; George Rymarczuk; Joshua Heller
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2017-06

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  The Influence of Exercise on Perceived Pain and Disability in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Jarrett Slater; Morey J Kolber; Kristen C Schellhase; Chetan K Patel; Carey E Rothschild; Xinliang Liu; William J Hanney
Journal:  Am J Lifestyle Med       Date:  2015-02-16

Review 7.  Lower complication and reoperation rates for laminectomy rather than MI TLIF/other fusions for degenerative lumbar disease/spondylolisthesis: A review.

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2018-03-07

8.  Racial Disparities in Elderly Patients Receiving Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery.

Authors:  Doniel Drazin; Faris Shweikeh; Carlito Lagman; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Maxwell Boakye
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-05-01

9.  Comment on "Controversies about Interspinous Process Devices in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases: Past, Present, and Future".

Authors:  Alessandro Landi; Fabrizio Gregori; Giovanni Grasso; Cristina Mancarella; Roberto Delfini
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Utilization of Interspinous Devices Throughout the United States Over a Recent Decade: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Hemant Reddy; Joseph M Lombardi; Jamal N Shillingford; Comron Saifi; Charla R Fischer; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.