Hrafnhildur Hjaltadottir1, Hanna Hebelka1,2, Caroline Molinder1, Helena Brisby2,3, Adad Baranto4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. adad.baranto@vgregion.se. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden. adad.baranto@vgregion.se.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect on the spinal canal at the treated and adjacent level(s), in patients treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with percutaneous interspinous process device (IPD) Aperius™ or open decompressive surgery (ODS), using axial loading of the spine during MRI (alMRI). MATERIALS: Nineteen LSS patients (mean age 67 years, range 49-78) treated with IPDs in 29 spine levels and 13 LSS patients (mean age 63 years, range 46-76) operated with ODS in 22 spine levels were examined with alMRI pre- and 3 months postoperatively. Radiological effects were evaluated by measuring the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) and by morphological grading of nerve root affection. RESULTS: For the IPD group, no DSCSA increase was observed at the operated level (p = 0.42); however, a decrease was observed in adjacent levels (p = 0.05). No effect was seen regarding morphological grading (operated level: p = 0.71/adjacent level: p = 0.94). For the ODS group, beneficial effects were seen for the operated level, both regarding DSCSA (p < 0.001) and for morphological grading (p < 0.0001). No changes were seen for adjacent levels (DSCSA; p = 0.47/morphological grading: p = 0.95). Postoperatively, a significant difference between the groups existed at the operated level regarding both evaluated parameters (p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: With the spine imaged in an axial loaded position, no significant radiological effects of an IPD could be detected postoperatively at the treated level, while increased DSCSA was displayed for the ODS group. In addition, reduced DSCSA in adjacent levels was detected for the IPD group. Thus, the beneficial effects of IPD implants on the spinal canal must be questioned. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect on the spinal canal at the treated and adjacent level(s), in patients treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with percutaneous interspinous process device (IPD) Aperius™ or open decompressive surgery (ODS), using axial loading of the spine during MRI (alMRI). MATERIALS: Nineteen LSSpatients (mean age 67 years, range 49-78) treated with IPDs in 29 spine levels and 13 LSSpatients (mean age 63 years, range 46-76) operated with ODS in 22 spine levels were examined with alMRI pre- and 3 months postoperatively. Radiological effects were evaluated by measuring the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) and by morphological grading of nerve root affection. RESULTS: For the IPD group, no DSCSA increase was observed at the operated level (p = 0.42); however, a decrease was observed in adjacent levels (p = 0.05). No effect was seen regarding morphological grading (operated level: p = 0.71/adjacent level: p = 0.94). For the ODS group, beneficial effects were seen for the operated level, both regarding DSCSA (p < 0.001) and for morphological grading (p < 0.0001). No changes were seen for adjacent levels (DSCSA; p = 0.47/morphological grading: p = 0.95). Postoperatively, a significant difference between the groups existed at the operated level regarding both evaluated parameters (p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: With the spine imaged in an axial loaded position, no significant radiological effects of an IPD could be detected postoperatively at the treated level, while increased DSCSA was displayed for the ODS group. In addition, reduced DSCSA in adjacent levels was detected for the IPD group. Thus, the beneficial effects of IPD implants on the spinal canal must be questioned. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Entities:
Keywords:
Axial loading during MRI; Decompression; Interspinous process device; MRI; Spinal stenosis
Authors: Anjali Nandakumar; Natasha Annette Clark; Jeetender Pal Peehal; Naval Bilolikar; Douglas Wardlaw; Francis W Smith Journal: Spine J Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Carlo Ammendolia; Kent Stuber; Linda K de Bruin; Andrea D Furlan; Carol A Kennedy; Yoga Raja Rampersaud; Ivan A Steenstra; Victoria Pennick Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Stefano Marcia; Joshua A Hirsch; Ronil V Chandra; Mariangela Marras; Emanuele Piras; Giovanni Carlo Anselmetti; Mario Muto; Luca Saba Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.464