Literature DB >> 25232541

Interspinous posterior devices: What is the real surgical indication?

Alessandro Landi1.   

Abstract

Interspinous posterior device (IPD) is a term used to identify a relatively recent group of implants used to treat lumbar spinal degenerative disease. This kind of device is classified as part of the group of the dynamic stabilization systems of the spine. The concept of dynamic stabilization has been replaced by that of dynamic neutralization of hypermobility, with the intention of clarifying that the primary aim of this kind of system is not the preservation of the movement, but the dynamic neutralization of the segmental hypermobility which is at the root of the pathological condition. The indications for the implantation of an IPD are spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication, assuming that its function is the enlargement of the neural foramen and the decompression of the roots forming the cauda equina in the central part of the vertebral canal. In the last 10 years, use of these implants has been very common but to date, no long-term clinical follow-up regarding clinical and radiological aspects are available. The high rate of reoperation, recurrence of symptoms and progression of degenerative changes is evident in the literature. If these devices are effectively a miracle cure for lumbar spinal stenosis, why do the utilization and implantation of IPD remain extremely controversial and should they be investigated further? Excluding the problems related to the high cost of the device, the main problem remains the pathological substrate on which the device is explicit in its action: the degenerative pathology of the spine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interspinous distraction; Interspinous fusion device; Interspinous posterior device; Minimally invasive surgery; Motion preservation surgery; Spine surgery

Year:  2014        PMID: 25232541      PMCID: PMC4163760          DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i9.402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Clin Cases        ISSN: 2307-8960            Impact factor:   1.337


  76 in total

Review 1.  Pelvic parameters: origin and significance.

Authors:  J C Le Huec; S Aunoble; Leijssen Philippe; Pellet Nicolas
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Mechanical function of the human lumbar interspinous and supraspinous ligaments.

Authors:  R J Hindle; M J Pearcy; A Cross
Journal:  J Biomed Eng       Date:  1990-07

3.  Occult spinous process fractures associated with interspinous process spacers.

Authors:  David H Kim; Mark Tantorski; Jeremy Shaw; Juli Martha; Ling Li; Nael Shanti; Tal Rencu; Stephen Parazin; Brian Kwon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The resistance to flexion of the lumbar intervertebral joint.

Authors:  M A Adams; W C Hutton; J R Stott
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1980 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Pathomechanism of ligamentum flavum hypertrophy: a multidisciplinary investigation based on clinical, biomechanical, histologic, and biologic assessments.

Authors:  Koichi Sairyo; Ashok Biyani; Vijay Goel; Douglas Leaman; Robert Booth; Jean Thomas; Daniel Gehling; Lakshmi Vishnubhotla; Rebecca Long; Nabil Ebraheim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Thomas Repantis; Spyros Zacharatos; Andreas Zafiropoulos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature.

Authors:  Giuseppe M V Barbagallo; Giuseppe Olindo; Leonardo Corbino; Vincenzo Albanese
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Stress fracture of bilateral posterior facet after insertion of interspinous implant.

Authors:  Kook Jin Chung; Yoon Sub Hwang; Sung Hye Koh
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The effect of posterior thoracic spine anatomical structures on motion segment flexion stiffness.

Authors:  Andy L Anderson; Terence E McIff; Marc A Asher; Douglas C Burton; R Christopher Glattes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Interspinous distractor devices for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a miracle cure for a common problem?

Authors:  Anouk Borg; Besnik Nurboja; Jake Timothy; David Choi
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 1.596

View more
  4 in total

1.  Lumbar spinal degenerative "microinstability": hype or hope? Proposal of a new classification to detect it and to assess surgical treatment.

Authors:  A Landi; F Gregori; C Mancarella; V Maiola; E Maccari; N Marotta; R Delfini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Biomechanical changes of degenerated adjacent segment and intact lumbar spine after lumbosacral topping-off surgery: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Liangliang Cao; Yumei Liu; Wei Mei; Jianguang Xu; Shi Zhan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.