Literature DB >> 30280085

Spinal Stenosis in the Absence of Spondylolisthesis: Can Interlaminar Stabilization at Single and Multi-levels Provide Sustainable Relief?

Celeste Abjornson1, Byung-Jo Victor Yoon1, Tucker Callanan1, Daniel Shein1, Samuel Grinberg1, Frank P Cammisa1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the absence of spondylolisthesis, fusion procedures are generally not recommended. However, decompression alone often does not provide long-term clinical success of intractable leg and back pain. Decompression with interlaminar stabilization (ILS) offers a new option within the clinical continuum of care by providing a nonfusion surgical alternative. The objective of this study is to examine the sustainability of decompression with ILS and to understand the clinical success at either 1 or 2 levels as a surgical treatment for nonspondylolisthesis patients with spinal stenosis.
METHODS: Under an FDA-regulated investigational device exemption (IDE) study, a total of 322 patients were enrolled in the prospective, randomized trial. This investigation focuses only on the subset of patients (116 total) from this overall cohort who were treated with decompression plus ILS at 1 or 2 levels and who did not present with spondylolisthesis preoperatively. The patients were assessed before and after surgery up to 60 months.
RESULTS: At 60-month follow up, there was no statistically significant difference in ODI ≥ 15 point improvement between patient populations (81.6% of 1 level, 90.3% of 2 level). At 60 months, 83.1% of 1 level and 86.3% of 2 level patients did not require a secondary surgical procedure. At 60 months, 94.7% of 1 level and 100% of 2 level reported ≥20 mm improvement in Visual Analogue Scale leg pain. Patients reported improvement in their physical state according to Short Form-12 scores (89.3% of 1 level, 88.9% of 2 level). Patient satisfaction at 60 months was 97.4% for 1 level and 93.3% for 2 level.
CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic sustainability for the treatment of spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis with ILS at 1 or 2 levels in the lumbar region has been shown to be safe and efficacious for patients who have failed conservative treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Decompression with ILS offers a nonterminal surgical option for the treatment of the symptomology of spinal stenosis, a progressive degenerative condition, that potentially can provide longer durability and stability than decompression alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ILS; interlaminar stabilization; nonfusion surgical alternative; spinal stenosis

Year:  2018        PMID: 30280085      PMCID: PMC6162044          DOI: 10.14444/5011

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


  16 in total

1.  Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height?

Authors:  Haydar Celik; Alihan Derincek; Ismet Koksal
Journal:  Turk Neurosurg       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.003

2.  A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex) used to stabilize the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Kai-Jow Tsai; Hideki Murakami; Gary L Lowery; William C Hutton
Journal:  J Surg Orthop Adv       Date:  2006

3.  Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Michael J Musacchio; Carl Lauryssen; Reginald J Davis; Hyun W Bae; John H Peloza; Richard D Guyer; Jack E Zigler; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Scott Leary
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-01-26

4.  Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; J Drumm; K Häussler; C Mack; W-I Steudel; A Kettler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous u (coflex).

Authors:  Seong-Cheol Park; Sang Hoon Yoon; Yong-Pyo Hong; Ki-Jeong Kim; Sang-Ki Chung; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-10-31

6.  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

7.  Long-term outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis: eight-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

Authors:  Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna Tosteson; William A Abdu; Wenyan Zhao; Tamara S Morgan; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

Review 9.  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

10.  Prognostic factors in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.

Authors:  Freyr G Sigmundsson; Xiao P Kang; Bo Jönsson; Björn Strömqvist
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.