Literature DB >> 27683693

Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kevin Phan1, Prashanth J Rao2, Jonathon R Ball3, Ralph J Mobbs1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interspinous spacers are used in selected patients for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The uses of interspinous devices are still debated, with reports of significantly higher reoperation rates and unfavourable cost-effectiveness compared to traditional decompression techniques.
METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from their date of inception to December 2015. Relevant studies were identified using specific eligibility criteria and data was extracted and analyzed based on predefined primary and secondary endpoints.
RESULTS: Eleven comparative studies were obtained for qualitative and quantitative assessment, data extraction and analysis. There was no significant difference in VAS back pain, leg pain or ODI scores for standalone interspinous process device (IPD) vs. bony decompression. However, standalone IPD was associated with lower surgical complications (4% vs. 8.7%, P=0.03) but higher long-term reoperation rates (23.7% vs. 8.5%, P<0.00001). IPD as an adjunct to decompression had comparable patient-reported scores, complications and reoperation rates to decompression alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates no superiority for mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes for IPD compared with traditional bony decompression, with lesser surgical complications but at the risk of significantly higher reoperation rates and costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interspinous process; decompression; lumbar stenosis; spacer; systematic review

Year:  2016        PMID: 27683693      PMCID: PMC5039840          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2016.01.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  41 in total

1.  [Surgery of the intervertebral ligaments, alternative to arthrodesis in the treatment of degenerative instabilities].

Authors:  J Senegas
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 0.500

2.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; David H Tian; Christopher Cao; Deborah Black; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-03

4.  IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Wilco C H Jacobs; Erik W van Zwet; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Bart W Koes; Carmen Lam Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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

6.  Interspinous process devices versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  M Elske van den Akker-van Marle; Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Degenerative lumbar disc and facet disease in older adults: prevalence and clinical correlates.

Authors:  Gregory E Hicks; Natalia Morone; Debra K Weiner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Dynamic intraspinous spacer technology for posterior stabilization: case-control study on the safety, sagittal angulation, and pain outcome at 1-year follow-up evaluation.

Authors:  K Anthony Kim; Matthew McDonald; Justin H T Pik; Paul Khoueir; Michael Y Wang
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 4.047

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
  12 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Long-term results with percutaneous interspinous process devices in the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication.

Authors:  Patrick Fransen
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12

5.  Utilization of Interspinous Devices Throughout the United States Over a Recent Decade: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Joseph L Laratta; Hemant Reddy; Joseph M Lombardi; Jamal N Shillingford; Comron Saifi; Charla R Fischer; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-09-14

6.  Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Authors:  Ben Roitberg; Mehmet Zileli; Salman Sharif; Carla Anania; Maurizio Fornari; Francesco Costa
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2020-03-19

Review 7.  Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arthur Werner Poetscher; Andre Felix Gentil; Mario Ferretti; Mario Lenza
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical and invasive treatments for adults with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a network meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Lingxiao Chen; Paulo H Ferreira; Paula R Beckenkamp; Manuela L Ferreira
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Biomechanics and Mechanism of Action of Indirect Lumbar Decompression and the Evolution of a Stand-alone Spinous Process Spacer.

Authors:  Steven M Falowski; Dawood Sayed; Timothy R Deer; Dane Brescacin; Kevin Liang
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.750

10.  Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases.

Authors:  Cheng-Yu Li; Mao-Yu Chen; Chen-Nen Chang; Jiun-Lin Yan
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 2.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.