Literature DB >> 25288390

Microdiscectomy with and without insertion of interspinous device for herniated disc at the L5-S1 level.

Marcelo Galarza1, Roberto Gazzeri2, Pedro De la Rosa1, Juan F Martínez-Lage1.   

Abstract

The role of interspinous devices (ISD) after lumbar herniated disc surgery for the prevention of postoperative back pain is controversial. The aim of this comparative prospective study was to determine outcomes in a selective cohort with L5-S1 disc herniation and degenerative disc changes after microdiscectomy with or without insertion of an ISD. One hundred and two consecutive patients underwent an L5-S1 microdiscectomy with or without implantation of an ISD. Group 1 consisted of 47 patients, with mild (n=22), moderate (n=14) or severe (n=11) degenerative disc changes who had microdiscectomy alone. Group 2 comprised 45 patients with similar types of disc changes who underwent microdiscectomy with an ISD implant. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to grade low-back pain and postoperative clinical status was rated according to the modified MacNab criteria. Mean VAS score for low-back pain improved significantly at 1 year follow-up from 7.3 at baseline to 2.75 (p<0.001) in Group 1 and from 6.7 to 1.5 (p=0.001) in Group 2. VAS score at 1 year showed significant improvements in 21 Group 1 patients versus 30 Group 2 patients (p=0.001). Forty four percent of Group 1 patients and 80% of Group 2 patients showed improvement using the modified MacNab criteria. Patients in both groups reported significant improvement in sciatic pain and disability after microdiscectomy with or without an ISD implant. Patients with mild degenerative disc changes were more likely to achieve improvement of their low-back pain when treated with both microdiscectomy and ISD insertion.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative study design; Degenerative disc disease; Dynamic spinal fusion; Herniated disc; Interspinous process device; Low-back pain; Microdiscectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25288390     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.02.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yijian Zhang; Dongdong Lu; Wei Ji; Fan He; Angela Carley Chen; Huilin Yang; Xuesong Zhu
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2020-09-26       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  15-year survivorship analysis of an interspinous device in surgery for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Yoon Joo Cho; Jong-Beom Park; Dong-Gune Chang; Hong Jin Kim
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.