Literature DB >> 25064150

Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up.

Fabrizio Puzzilli1, Roberto Gazzeri2, Marcelo Galarza3, Massimiliano Neroni4, Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos1, Andrea Bolognini5, Giorgio Callovini5, Umberto Agrillo1, Alex Alfieri6.   

Abstract

Interspinous distraction devices provide an effective treatment for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis and/or degenerative disk disease. The aim of this multicenter study was the prospective evaluation of patients treated for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis with interspinous process decompression (IPD) implants compared with a population of patients managed with conservative treatment. 542 patients affected by symptomatic lumbar spine degenerative disease were enrolled in a controlled trial. 422 patients underwent surgical treatment consisting of X-STOP device implantation, whereas 120 control cases were managed conservatively. Both patient groups underwent follow-up evaluations at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, the Visual Analog Scale score and spinal lumbar X-rays, CT scans and MR imaging. One-year follow-up evaluation revealed positive good results in the 83.5% of patients treated with IPD with respect to 50% of the nonoperative group cases. During the first three years, in 38 out of the 120 control cases, a posterior decompression and/or spinal fixation was performed because of unsatisfactory results of the conservative therapy. In 24 of 422 patients, the IPD device had to be removed, and a decompression and/or pedicle screw fixation was performed because of the worsening of neurological symptoms. Our results support the effectiveness of surgery in patients with stenosis. IPD may offer an effective and less invasive alternative to classical microsurgical posterior decompression in selected patients with spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative disk diseases.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interspinous device; Interspinous process decompression; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Spinal complications; X-STOP

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25064150     DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg        ISSN: 0303-8467            Impact factor:   1.876


  14 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  Point of view.

Authors:  Jon D Lurie
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Yifeng Cai; Jiaquan Luo; Junjun Huang; Chengjie Lian; Hang Zhou; Hao Yao; Peiqiang Su
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  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

6.  Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Combined With an Interspinous Process Distraction System for Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Carolina Ramírez Martínez; Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz; Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

7.  Grade 1 spondylolisthesis and interspinous device placement: removal in six patients and analysis of current data.

Authors:  Parker E Bohm; Karen K Anderson; Elizabeth A Friis; Paul M Arnold
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-04-02

8.  Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study.

Authors:  Weimin Huang; Zhengqi Chang; Jingtao Zhang; Ruoxian Song; Xiuchun Yu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-11-01       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Effectiveness of dynamic fixation Coflex treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Jun-Xi Zhang; Xi-Wei Jing; Ping Cui; Xin He; Ding-Jun Hao; Shu-Jing Li
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.447

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

Authors:  Roberto Gazzeri; Marcelo Galarza; Alex Alfieri
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.