24-Month Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using a Minimally Invasive Interspinous Fixation Device versus Standard Open Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Comparison

被引:1
|
作者
Baranidharan, Ganesan [1 ,2 ]
Bretherton, Beatrice [1 ,3 ]
Feltbower, Richard G. [4 ]
Timothy, Jake [5 ]
Khan, Almas Latif [6 ,7 ]
Subramanian, Ashok [8 ]
Ahmed, Mushtaq [9 ]
Crowther, Tracey A. [1 ,10 ]
Radford, Helen [10 ,11 ]
Gupta, Harun [12 ]
Chandramohan, Muthusamy [13 ]
Beall, Douglas P. [14 ]
Deer, Timothy R. [15 ]
Hedman, Thomas [16 ]
机构
[1] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Pain Management Dept, Leeds, England
[2] Univ Leeds, Sch Med, Leeds, England
[3] Univ Leeds, Fac Biol Sci, Sch Biomed Sci, Leeds, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Data Analyt, Sch Med, Leeds, England
[5] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Neurosci, Leeds, England
[6] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Spine Surg, Leeds, England
[7] Univ Leeds, Inst Med & Biol Engn, Leeds, England
[8] Musgrove Pk Hosp, Somerset Spinal Surg Serv, Taunton, England
[9] Dudley Grp NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed Surg, Dudley, England
[10] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Res & Innovat, Leeds, England
[11] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Clin Trials Res, Leeds, England
[12] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Dept Radiol, Leeds, England
[13] Bradford Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Radiol Dept, Bradford, England
[14] Comprehens Specialty Care, Edmond, OK USA
[15] Spine & Nerve Ctr Virginias, Charleston, WV USA
[16] Univ Kentucky, Dept Biomed Engn, Lexington, KY USA
来源
JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH | 2024年 / 17卷
关键词
lumbar spinal stenosis; surgical decompression; posterior lateral arthrodesis; patient reported outcomes; minimally invasive spine; interspinous fixation device; X-STOP; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; NEUROGENIC CLAUDICATION; FUSION; MULTICENTER; SPACER; IMPLANT; SURGERY;
D O I
10.2147/JPR.S453343
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: An early-stage, multi-centre, prospective, randomised control trial with five-year follow-up was approved by Health Research Authority to compare the efficacy of a minimally invasive, laterally implanted interspinous fixation device (IFD) to open direct surgical decompression in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Two-year results are presented. Patients and Methods: Forty-eight participants were randomly assigned to IFD or decompression. Primary study endpoints included changes from baseline at 8-weeks, 6, 12 and 24-months follow-ups for leg pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), back pain (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), LSS physical function (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire), distance walked in five minutes and number of repetitions of sitting-to-standing in one minute. Secondary study endpoints included patient and clinician global impression of change, adverse events, reoperations, operating parameters, and fusion rate. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean leg pain, back pain, ODI disability, LSS physical function, walking distance and sitting-to-standing repetitions compared to baseline over 24 months. Mean reduction of ODI from baseline levels was between 35% and 56% for IFD (p<0.002), and 49% to 55% for decompression (p<0.001) for all follow-up time points. Mean reduction of IFD group leg pain was between 57% and 78% for all time points (p<0.001), with 72% to 94% of participants having at least 30% reduction of leg pain from 8-weeks through 24-months. Walking distance for the IFD group increased from 66% to 94% and sitting-to-standing repetitions increased from 44% to 64% for all follow-up time points. Blood loss was 88% less in the IFD group (p=0.024) and operating time parameters strongly favoured IFD compared to decompression (p<0.001). An 89% fusion rate was assessed in a subset of IFD participants. There were no intraoperative device issues or re-operations in the IFD group, and only one healed and non-symptomatic spinous process fracture observed within 24 months. Conclusion: Despite a low number of participants in the IFD group, the study demonstrated successful two-year safety and clinical outcomes for the IFD with significant operation -related advantages compared to surgical decompression.
引用
收藏
页码:2079 / 2097
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review
    Merkow, Justin
    Varhabhatla, Narayana
    Manchikanti, Laxmaiah
    Kaye, Alan D.
    Urman, Richard D.
    Yong, R. Jason
    CURRENT PAIN AND HEADACHE REPORTS, 2020, 24 (04)
  • [2] Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review
    Justin Merkow
    Narayana Varhabhatla
    Laxmaiah Manchikanti
    Alan D. Kaye
    Richard D. Urman
    R. Jason Yong
    Current Pain and Headache Reports, 2020, 24
  • [3] Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression
    Rosner, Howard L.
    Tran, Oth
    Vajdi, Tina
    Vijjeswarapu, Mary A.
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2024, 49 (01) : 30 - 35
  • [4] Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis
    Postacchini, Roberto
    Ferrari, Emiliano
    Cinotti, Gianluca
    Menchetti, Pier Paolo Maria
    Postacchini, Franco
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2011, 11 (10): : 933 - 939
  • [5] The Impact of Age on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Mekhail, Nagy A.
    Costandi, Shrif J.
    Armanyous, Sherif
    Vallejo, Ricardo
    Poree, Lawrence R.
    Brown, Lora L.
    Golovac, Stanley
    Deer, Timothy R.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2020, 13 (13): : 151 - 161
  • [6] Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial
    Moojen, Wouter A.
    Arts, Mark P.
    Jacobs, Wilco C. H.
    van Zwet, Erik W.
    van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske
    Koes, Bart W.
    Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L. A. M.
    Peul, Wilco C.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2015, 49 (02) : 135 - 135
  • [7] Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
    Moojen, Wouter A.
    Arts, Mark P.
    Jacobs, Wilco C. H.
    van Zwet, Erik W.
    van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske
    Koes, Bart W.
    Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L. A. M.
    Peul, Wilco C.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 347
  • [8] Technical Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Lauryssen, Carl
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (26) : S287 - S293
  • [9] Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Posterior Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
    Kobayashi, Yuto
    Tamai, Koji
    Toyoda, Hiromitsu
    Terai, Hidetomi
    Hoshino, Masatoshi
    Suzuki, Akinobu
    Takahashi, Shinji
    Hori, Yusuke
    Yabu, Akito
    Nakamura, Hiroaki
    SPINE, 2021, 46 (18) : 1218 - 1225
  • [10] The incidence of lumbar spine surgery following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Superion Indirect Decompression System for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective review
    Hagedorn, Jonathan M.
    Yadav, Abhishek
    D'Souza, Ryan S.
    DeTemple, Nathan
    Wolff, Jason S.
    Parmele, James B.
    Deer, Timothy R.
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2022, 22 (05) : 516 - 521