interspinous devices
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

28
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
pp. 561-572
Author(s):  
Douglas G. Orndorff ◽  
Anneliese D. Heiner ◽  
Jim A. Youssef
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 100806
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Mikhail ◽  
James E. Dowdell ◽  
Andrew C. Hecht

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Tram ◽  
Shanmukha Srinivas ◽  
Arvin R. Wali ◽  
Courtney S. Lewis ◽  
Martin H. Pham

In this retrospective review study, the authors systematically reviewed the literature to elucidate the efficacy and complications associated with decompression and interspinous devices (ISDs) used in surgeries for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). LSS is a debilitating condition that affects the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. However, a comprehensive report on the relative efficacy and complication rate of ISDs as they compare to traditional decompression procedures is currently lacking. The PubMed database was queried to identify clinical studies that exclusively investigated decompression, those that exclusively investigated ISDs, and those that compared decompression with ISDs. Only prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were included. A random-effects model was established to assess the difference between preoperative and the 1–2-year postoperative VAS scores between ISD surgery and lumbar decompression. This study included 40 papers that matched our criteria. Twenty-five decompression-exclusive clinical trials with 3,386 patients and a mean age of 68.7 years (range, 31–88 years) reported a 2.2% incidence rate of dural tears and a 2.6% incidence rate of postoperative infections. Eight ISD-exclusive clinical trials with 1,496 patients and a mean age of 65.1 (range, 19–89 years) reported a 5.3% incidence rate of postoperative leg pain and a 3.7% incidence rate of spinous process fractures. Seven studies that compared ISDs and decompression in 624 patients found a reoperation rate of 8.3% in ISD patients vs. 3.9% in decompression patients; they also reported dural tears in 0.32% of ISD patients vs. 5.2% in decompression patients. A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials found that the differences in preoperative and postoperative VAS scores between the two groups were not significant. Both decompression and ISD interventions are unique surgical interventions with different therapeutic efficacies and complications. The collected studies do not consistently demonstrate superiority of either procedure over the other but understanding the differences between the two techniques can help tailor treatment regimens for patients with LSS.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
Anna Spicher ◽  
Werner Schmoelz ◽  
Rene Schmid ◽  
Hannes Stofferin ◽  
Niall J.A. Craig

AbstractIn the last decades, several interspinous process devices were designed as a minimally invasive treatment option for spinal stenosis. In order to minimise surgical trauma, interspinous process devices were recently discussed as an alternative posterior fixation in vertebral interbody fusions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a newly designed interspinous device with polyester bands (PBs) on range of motion (RoM) and centre of rotation (CoR) of a treated motion segment in comparison with an established interspinous device with spikes (SC) as well as with pedicle screw instrumentation in lumbar fusion procedures. Flexibility tests with an applied pure moment load of 7.5 Nm were performed in six monosegmental thoracolumbar functional spinal units (FSUs) in the following states: (a) native, (b) native with PB device, (c) intervertebral cage with PB device, (d) cage with SC and (e) cage with internal fixator. The resulting RoM was normalised to the native RoM. The CoR was determined of X-ray images taken in maximal flexion and extension during testing. In flexion and extension, the PB device without and with the cage reduced the RoM of the native state to 58% [standard deviation (SD) 17.8] and 53% (SD 15.7), respectively. The SC device further reduced the RoM to 27% (SD 16.8), while the pedicle screw instrumentation had the most reducing effect to 17% (SD 17.2) (p < 0.01). In lateral bending and axial rotation, the interspinous devices had the least effect on the RoM. Compared to the native state, for all instrumentations the CoR showed a small shift towards cranial. In the anterior-posterior direction, the SC device and the pedicle screw instrumentation shifted the CoR towards the posterior wall. The interspinous devices significantly reduced the RoM in flexion/extension, while in axial rotation and lateral bending only the internal fixator had a significant effect on the RoM.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 673-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Manfre ◽  
Aldo Eros De Vivo ◽  
Hosam Al Qatami ◽  
Ahmed Own ◽  
Fausto Ventura ◽  
...  

PurposeLumbar spinal canal stenosis and lumbar spinal foraminal stenosis are common, degenerative pathologies which can result in neurogenic claudication and have a negative impact on function and quality of life. Percutaneous interspinous devices (PIDs) are a recently-developed, minimally-invasive, alternative treatment option. This study details a 9 year single-centre experience with PIDs and examines the complementary use of spinous process augmentation (spinoplasty) to reduce failure rates.MethodsA retrospective cohort assessment of 800 consecutive patients who presented to a specialized spine hospital was performed with 688 receiving treatment. Inclusion was based on high-grade stenosis, failure of conservative management and electromyography. 256 had a PID alone while 432 had concurrent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation of the adjacent spinous processes. The patients were followed up at 3 and 12 months using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).ResultsBoth groups showed marked improvement in the patients’ ZCQ scores (3.2 to 1.3) and ODI scores (32 to 21), with strong satisfaction results (1.7). The symptom recurrence rate from complications for the group which received concurrent spinous process augmentation was reduced when compared with the PID alone cohort (<1% vs 11.3%).ConclusionThis study demonstrates the efficacy of percutaneous interspinous devices in treating lumbar spinal stenosis. It also provides evidence that concurrent spinous process augmentation reduces the rate of symptom recurrence.


Author(s):  
Douglas G. Orndorff ◽  
Anneliese D. Heiner ◽  
Jim A. Youssef
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Lau ◽  
Michael Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph L. Laratta ◽  
Hemant Reddy ◽  
Joseph M. Lombardi ◽  
Jamal N. Shillingford ◽  
Comron Saifi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Dean G. Karahalios ◽  
Michael J. Musacchio
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document