Naresh Kumar1, Siddarth M Shah2, Yau Hong Ng2, Vinodh Kumar Pannierselvam2, Sudeep Dasde2, Liang Shen3. 1. University Spine Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To assess whether additional implantation of Coflex following spinal decompression provided better clinical outcomes compared to decompression alone for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Literature on benefits of additional Coflex implantation compared to decompression alone for symptomatic LSS is limited. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with Coflex implantation. Those patients who accepted Coflex implantation were placed in the Coflex group (n=22); while those opting for decompression alone, were placed in the comparison group (n=24). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively, six-months, one-year and two-years postoperatively, using the Oswestry disability index, 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-back pain and VAS-leg pain, and short form-36 (SF-36). Radiological indices (disc height, foraminal height and sagittal angle) were assessed preoperatively, six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in all the clinical outcome indicators at all points in time as compared to the preoperative status. However, improvement in the Coflex group was significantly greater (p<0.001) than the comparison group. Changes in the radiological indices did not correlate significantly with the improvement in clinical outcome indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Additional Coflex implantation after spinal decompression in symptomatic LSS offers better clinical outcomes than decompression alone in the short-term. Changes in radiological indices do not correlate with the improvements in clinical outcomes after surgery for symptomatic LSS.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To assess whether additional implantation of Coflex following spinal decompression provided better clinical outcomes compared to decompression alone for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and to determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Literature on benefits of additional Coflex implantation compared to decompression alone for symptomatic LSS is limited. METHODS:Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with Coflex implantation. Those patients who accepted Coflex implantation were placed in the Coflex group (n=22); while those opting for decompression alone, were placed in the comparison group (n=24). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively, six-months, one-year and two-years postoperatively, using the Oswestry disability index, 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)-back pain and VAS-leg pain, and short form-36 (SF-36). Radiological indices (disc height, foraminal height and sagittal angle) were assessed preoperatively, six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in all the clinical outcome indicators at all points in time as compared to the preoperative status. However, improvement in the Coflex group was significantly greater (p<0.001) than the comparison group. Changes in the radiological indices did not correlate significantly with the improvement in clinical outcome indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Additional Coflex implantation after spinal decompression in symptomatic LSS offers better clinical outcomes than decompression alone in the short-term. Changes in radiological indices do not correlate with the improvements in clinical outcomes after surgery for symptomatic LSS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coflex; Decompression; Interspinous process device; Spinal stenosis
Authors: Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
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
Authors: Jack Porrino; Aditya Rao; Jay Moran; Annie Wang; Jonathan Grauer; Andrew Haims; Kimia Kani Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Celeste Abjornson; Byung-Jo Victor Yoon; Tucker Callanan; Daniel Shein; Samuel Grinberg; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-03-30