Literature DB >> 26056630

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment.

Hyun W Bae1, Carl Lauryssen2, Greg Maislin3, Scott Leary4, Michael J Musacchio5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Approved treatment modalities for the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis encompass a variety of direct and indirect methods of decompression, though all have varying degrees of limitations and morbidity which potentially limit the efficacy and durability of the treatment. The coflex(®) interlaminar stabilization implant (Paradigm Spine, New York, NY), examined under a United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) clinical trial, is shown to have durable outcomes when compared to posterolateral fusion in the setting of post-decompression stabilization for stenotic patients. Other clinical and radiographic parameters, more indicative of durability, were also evaluated. The data collected from these parameters were used to expand the FDA composite clinical success (CCS) endpoint; thus, creating a more stringent Therapeutic Sustainability Endpoint (TSE). The TSE allows more precise calculation of the durability of interlaminar stabilization (ILS) when compared to the fusion control group.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data generated from a prospective, randomized, level-1 trial that was conducted at 21 US sites was carried out. Three hundred forty-four per-protocol subjects were enrolled and randomized to ILS or fusion after decompression for lumbar stenosis with up to grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical, safety, and radiographic data were collected and analyzed in both groups. Four-year outcomes were assessed, and the TSE was calculated for both cohorts. The clinical and radiographic factors thought to be associated with therapeutic sustainability were added to the CCS endpoints which were used for premarket approval (PMA).
RESULTS: Success rate, comprised of no second intervention and an ODI improvement of ≥ 15 points, was 57.6% of ILS and 46.7% of fusion patients (p = 0.095). Adding lack of fusion in the ILS cohort and successful fusion in the fusion cohort showed a CCS of 42.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Finally, adding adjacent level success to both cohorts and maintenance of foraminal height in the coflex cohort showed a CCS of 36.6% and 25.6%, respectively. With additional follow-up to five years in the U.S. PMA study, these trends are expected to continue to show the superior therapeutic sustainability of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion after decompression for spinal stenosis.
CONCLUSION: There are clear differences in both therapeutic sustainability and intended clinical effect of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation after decompression for spinal stenosis. There are CCS differences between coflex and fusion cohorts noted at four years post-op similar to the trends revealed in the two year data used for PMA approval. When therapeutic sustainability outcomes are added to the CCS, ILS is proven to be a sustainable treatment for stabilization of the vertebral motion segment after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar spinal stenosis; Posterolateral fusion; interlaminar stabilization implant

Year:  2015        PMID: 26056630      PMCID: PMC4442626          DOI: 10.14444/2015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  8 in total

Review 1.  Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature.

Authors:  Paul Park; Hugh J Garton; Vishal C Gala; Julian T Hoff; John E McGillicuddy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Mitigating adverse event reporting bias in spine surgery.

Authors:  Joshua D Auerbach; Kevin B McGowan; Marci Halevi; Michael C Gerling; Alok D Sharan; Peter G Whang; Greg Maislin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Naresh Kumar; Siddarth M Shah; Yau Hong Ng; Vinodh Kumar Pannierselvam; Sudeep Dasde; Liang Shen
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2014-04-08

Review 4.  Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis.

Authors:  Mohammad Etminan; Federico P Girardi; Safdar N Khan; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.472

5.  Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial.

Authors:  Reginald J Davis; Thomas J Errico; Hyun Bae; Joshua D Auerbach
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article.

Authors:  Reginald Davis; Joshua D Auerbach; Hyun Bae; Thomas J Errico
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-05-31

8.  Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Kevin L Ong; Joshua D Auerbach; Edmund Lau; Jordana Schmier; Jorge A Ochoa
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.047

  8 in total
  7 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.  ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Richard Guyer; Michael Musacchio; Frank P Cammisa; Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-12-05

3.  Interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion versus double-segment fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum follow-up of three years.

Authors:  Xiao-Long Chen; Li Guan; Yu-Zeng Liu; Jin-Cai Yang; Wen-Long Wang; Yong Hai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study and Two-Dimensional Operative Video.

Authors:  Olivia E Gilbert; Sarah E Lawhon; Twila L Gaston; Jared M Robichaux; Gabriel Claudiu Tender
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 2.948

5.  Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Teng Lu; Yi Lu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Interlaminar stabilization and decompression for the treatment of bilateral juxtafacet cysts: Case report and literature review.

Authors:  Iahn Cajigas; Alberto Varon; Howard B Levene
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2019-03-30

7.  A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion.

Authors:  Xiaoqing Zheng; Zhida Chen; Honglong Yu; Jianxiong Zhuang; Hui Yu; Yunbing Chang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 2.447

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.