Literature DB >> 24308292

The mild® procedure: a systematic review of the current literature.

D Scott Kreiner1, John MacVicar, Belinda Duszynski, Devi E Nampiaparampil.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study's objective was to determine if the literature supports use of the Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (mild®) procedure (Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) to reduce pain and improve function in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN/SETTINGS: The study was designed as an evidence-based review of available data. Studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system. Results were compiled assessing short- (4-6 weeks), medium- (3-6 months), and long-term (>1 year) outcomes. The primary outcomes evaluated were pain, measured by the visual analog scale (VAS), and function, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included pain and patient satisfaction, measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, adverse effects/complications, and changes in utilization of co-interventions.
RESULTS: The literature search revealed one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 12 other studies (seven prospective cohort, four retrospective, and one case series) that provided information on the use of mild® in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time frames compared with preprocedure levels; the RCT showed improvement over controls. Categorical data were not provided; thus, the proportion of patients who experienced minimal clinically meaningful outcomes is unknown.
CONCLUSION: The current body of evidence addressing mild® is of low quality. High-quality studies that are independent of industry funding and provide categorical data are needed to clarify the proportions of patients who benefit from mild® and the degree to which these patients benefit. Additional data at up to 2 years are needed to determine the overall utility of the procedure. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Intermittent Claudication; Interventional; Lumbar; Neurogenic Claudication; Percutaneous Decompression; Spinal Stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24308292     DOI: 10.1111/pme.12305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.750


  5 in total

Review 1.  Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jon Lurie; Christy Tomkins-Lane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-01-04

2.  A minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure after an interspinous spacer device implantation: an uncommon order of treatment with a successful outcome.

Authors:  Salomon Poliwoda; Nazir Noor; Ivan Urits; Omar Viswanath; Christian Gonzalez; Alan D Kaye
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2022-06-27

Review 3.  Spinal Cord Stimulation, MILD Procedure, and Regenerative Medicine, Novel Interventional Nonopioid Therapies in Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Ken P Ehrhardt; Susan M Mothersele; Andrew J Brunk; Jeremy B Green; Mark R Jones; Craig B Billeaud; Alan David Kaye
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2018-03-19

Review 4.  An Algorithmic Approach to Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Evidenced-Based Approach.

Authors:  Sudhir Diwan; Dawood Sayed; Timothy R Deer; Amber Salomons; Kevin Liang
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.750

5.  Microscopic decompressive laminectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rong Wang; Xiuxia Li; Xiaogang Zhang; Daping Qin; Guodong Yang; Guodong Gao; Hua Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.