Michael Pintauro1, Alexander Duffy1, Payman Vahedi2,3, George Rymarczuk1,4, Joshua Heller1. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 909 Walnut St, 3rd Floor, COB Bldg, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 909 Walnut St, 3rd Floor, COB Bldg, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. payman.vahedi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. payman.vahedi@gmail.com. 4. Division of Neurosurgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) are used in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The purpose of this review is to compare the first generation with the next-generation devices in terms of complications, device failure, reoperation rates, symptom relief, and outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-seven studies were included from 2011 to 2016. Device failure occurred at a mean of 3.7%, with a lower tendency to happen with next-generation IPDs. Reoperations occurred at a lower rate with the next-generation devices, with a mean follow up of 24 months (3.7% vs. 11.1%). The clinical outcome is not influenced by the type of IPD. The long-term functionality of these devices is questionable, with radiologic changes and recurrence of symptoms often seen by 2 years following implantation. Next-generation devices do not appear to be subject to the same "bounce back" effect of symptom re-emergence after several years.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) are used in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The purpose of this review is to compare the first generation with the next-generation devices in terms of complications, device failure, reoperation rates, symptom relief, and outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-seven studies were included from 2011 to 2016. Device failure occurred at a mean of 3.7%, with a lower tendency to happen with next-generation IPDs. Reoperations occurred at a lower rate with the next-generation devices, with a mean follow up of 24 months (3.7% vs. 11.1%). The clinical outcome is not influenced by the type of IPD. The long-term functionality of these devices is questionable, with radiologic changes and recurrence of symptoms often seen by 2 years following implantation. Next-generation devices do not appear to be subject to the same "bounce back" effect of symptom re-emergence after several years.
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
Authors: Jan Van Meirhaeghe; Patrick Fransen; Daniele Morelli; Niall J A Craig; Gregor Godde; Attila Mihalyi; Frederic Collignon Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Vikas V Patel; Pierce D Nunley; Peter G Whang; Thomas R Haley; W Daniel Bradley; Raphael P Davis; Jon E Block; Fred H Geisler Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 3.133
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