Literature DB >> 33371350

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

Cheng-Yu Li1, Mao-Yu Chen2, Chen-Nen Chang1, Jiun-Lin Yan2,3.   

Abstract

Background and objectives: The prevalence of degenerative lumbar spine diseases has increased. In addition to standard lumbar decompression and/or fusion techniques, implantation of interspinous process devices (IPDs) can provide clinical benefits in highly selected patients. However, changes in spinal structures after IPD implantation using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have rarely been discussed. This volumetric study aimed to evaluate the effect of IPD implantation on the intervertebral disc and foramen using three-dimensional assessment. Materials and
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated with IPD implantation and foraminotomy and/or discectomy between January 2016 and December 2019. The mean follow-up period was 13.6 months. The perioperative lumbar MRI data were processed for 3D-volumetric analysis. Clinical outcomes, including the Prolo scale and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and radiographic outcomes, such as the disc height, foraminal area, and translation, were analyzed.
Results: Fifty patients were included in our study. At the one-year follow-up, the VAS and Prolo scale scores significantly improved (both p < 0.001). The disc height and foraminal area on radiographs also increased significantly, but with limited effects up to three months postoperatively. MRI revealed an increased postoperative disc height with a mean difference of 0.5 ± 0.1 mm (p < 0.001). Although the mean disc volume difference did not significantly increase, the mean foraminal volume difference was 0.4 ± 0.16 mm3 (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In select patients with degenerative disc diseases or lumbar spinal stenosis, the intervertebral foramen was enlarged, and disc loading was reduced after IPD implantation with decompression surgery. The 3D findings were compatible with the clinical benefits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DIAM; decompression; degenerative lumbar spine diseases; interspinous process device; magnetic resonance imaging; three-dimensional

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33371350      PMCID: PMC7767335          DOI: 10.3390/medicina56120723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)        ISSN: 1010-660X            Impact factor:   2.430


  33 in total

1.  Elastic stabilization alone or combined with rigid fusion in spinal surgery: a biomechanical study and clinical experience based on 82 cases.

Authors:  S Caserta; G A La Maida; B Misaggi; D Peroni; R Pietrabissa; M T Raimondi; A Redaelli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2002-09-13       Impact factor: 3.134

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.  Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Yifeng Cai; Jiaquan Luo; Junjun Huang; Chengjie Lian; Hang Zhou; Hao Yao; Peiqiang Su
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Interspinous spacers in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: our experience with DIAM and Aperius devices.

Authors:  Antonio P Fabrizi; Raffaella Maina; Luigi Schiabello
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression.

Authors:  Tobias L Schulte; Christof Hurschler; Marcel Haversath; Ulf Liljenqvist; Viola Bullmann; Timm J Filler; Nani Osada; Eva-Maria Fallenberg; Lars Hackenberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  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

7.  Lumbar disc herniation surgery with microdiscectomy plus interspinous stabilization: Good clinical results, but failure to lower the incidence of re-operation.

Authors:  Manuel Segura-Trepichio; Antonio Martin-Benlloch; Jose Manuel Montoza-Nuñez; David Candela-Zaplana; Andreu Nolasco
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 1.961

8.  The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Derek P Lindsey; Kyle E Swanson; Paul Fuchs; Ken Y Hsu; James F Zucherman; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  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

10.  Long-term Follow-up (Minimum 5 Years) Study of Single-level Posterior Dynamic Stabilization in Lumbar Degenerative Disease; 'Interspinous U' & 'DIAM'.

Authors:  Yeon Joon Kim; Sang Gu Lee; Chan Woo Park; Seong Son; Woo Kyung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2012-06-30
View more
  1 in total

1.  15-year survivorship analysis of an interspinous device in surgery for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Yoon Joo Cho; Jong-Beom Park; Dong-Gune Chang; Hong Jin Kim
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 2.362

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.