Literature DB >> 27178046

Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Mao Li1, Huilin Yang2, Genlin Wang3.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare interspinous process device (IPD) implantation to other methods for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). PubMed and Cochrane library were searched in December 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPD implantation and nonoperative therapy or laminectomy with/without spinal fusion for the treatment of NIC due to spinal stenosis or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted as appropriate. Eleven articles (eight RCTs) were included, with two having high risk of bias. These RCTs were divided into three groups according to control cohort interventions: IPD implantation was compared with nonoperative treatment (group 1, n = 3), laminectomy (group 2, n = 3), and laminectomy associated with instrumented spinal fusion (group 3, n = 2). Group 1 studies reported better Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores for the IPD group. In group 2, two studies reported comparable ZCQ scores and one revealed comparable visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores; pooled analysis showed a higher reoperation rate in patients treated with IPD. In group 3, one study found that more patients in IPD group gained more than 25 % improvement in VAS and ODI, with lower complication rate; the other reported better ZCQ scores in the IPD group and comparable complication and reoperation rates. IPD implantation is more effective than the other methods, but not superior to laminectomy in treating NIC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interspinous process devices; Neurogenic intermittent claudication; Spinal stenosis; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27178046     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-016-0722-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  33 in total

1.  Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Roberto Postacchini; Emiliano Ferrari; Gianluca Cinotti; Pier Paolo Maria Menchetti; Franco Postacchini
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Roland K Pratt; Jeremy C T Fairbank; Andrew Virr
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Authors:  Andrea D Furlan; Victoria Pennick; Claire Bombardier; Maurits van Tulder
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results.

Authors:  James F Zucherman; Ken Y Hsu; Charles A Hartjen; Thomas F Mehalic; Dante A Implicito; Michael J Martin; Donald R Johnson; Grant A Skidmore; Paul P Vessa; James W Dwyer; Stephen T Puccio; Joseph C Cauthen; Richard M Ozuna
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication.

Authors:  R W Porter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1996-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  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

8.  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

9.  A prospective randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine with the Wallis ligament.

Authors:  Gavin David John Marsh; Shah Mahir; Antonio Leyte
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  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:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  3 in total

1.  Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.

Authors:  Miguel Ángel Plasencia Arriba; Carmen Maestre; Fernando Martín-Gorroño; Paula Plasencia
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-07-31

Review 2.  Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Jay S Grider; Jason E Pope; Tim J Lamer; Sayed E Wahezi; Jonathan M Hagedorn; Steven Falowski; Reda Tolba; Jay M Shah; Natalie Strand; Alex Escobar; Mark Malinowski; Anjum Bux; Navdeep Jassal; Jennifer Hah; Jacqueline Weisbein; Nestor D Tomycz; Jessica Jameson; Erika A Petersen; Dawood Sayed
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 2.832

3.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions.

Authors:  Jia Zhu; Hangkai Shen; Yangyang Cui; Guy R Fogel; Zhenhua Liao; Weiqiang Liu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.279

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.