Literature DB >> 29354740

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

Patrick Fransen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) is the main symptom of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Percutaneous interspinous process decompression devices (IPDs) have been designed as an alternative therapy to conservative treatment and to open decompressive surgery for patients suffering from NIC. Initial short-term results were encouraging. We present the long-term results of a group of patients that we followed to provide insight on long-term outcomes and effectiveness of this technique compared to other decompression methods.
METHODS: Fifteen patients operated for NIC by implantation of percutaneous IPDs have been prospectively monitored for reoperations or complications. Follow-up (FU) was interrupted if the patient was reoperated. Results were considered poor if the patient had to be reoperated at any stage of the FU or if the treatment failed to alleviate the pain after 6 months. Results were considered average if the patient still suffered some pain but did not require reoperation.
RESULTS: The patients were followed up to 7 years after the initial surgery. The mean length of the FU was 3.53 years and all patients could be followed. At the end of the FU, the results were good in only 20.0% (3/15), average in 13.3% (2/15) and poor in 66.7% (10/15).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial satisfactory results, long-term FU is disappointing, with 80% poor or average results. The long-term reoperation rate is high (66.6%), increases over time and is higher than after implantation of IPDs for decompression augmentation. Although this technique is simple and safe, its effectiveness seems short-lived. We recommend cautious use and informing patients about the risk of relatively early failure and recurrence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Interspinous process device; minimally invasive surgery; spinal stenosis

Year:  2017        PMID: 29354740      PMCID: PMC5760401          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.11.07

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


  16 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Diagnostic value of the history and physical examination.

Authors:  J N Katz; M Dalgas; G Stucki; N P Katz; J Bayley; A H Fossel; L C Chang; S J Lipson
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1995-09

4.  Clinical recording of pressure on the spinal cord and cauda equina. Part 2: position changes in pressure on the cauda equina in central lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  B Magnaes
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Clinical recording of pressure on the spinal cord and cauda equina. Part 1: the spinal block infusion test: method and clinical studies.

Authors:  B Magnaes
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 6.  Lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Stephane Genevay; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.098

7.  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

8.  Clinical evaluation of the preliminary safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive interspinous process device APERIUS(®) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with symptomatic neurogenic intermittent claudication.

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

9.  Lumbar spinal stenosis treatment with Aperius perclid interspinous system.

Authors:  M F Surace; A Fagetti; S Fozzato; P Cherubino
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Biomechanics of interspinous devices.

Authors:  Paolo D Parchi; Gisberto Evangelisti; Antonella Vertuccio; Nicola Piolanti; Lorenzo Andreani; Valentina Cervi; Christian Giannetti; Giuseppe Calvosa; Michele Lisanti
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  2 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.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.