3.9 Article

Two-Year Results of X-Stop Interspinous Implant for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis A Prospective Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 1-7

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318227ea2b

Keywords

X-stop; lumbar spinal stenosis; prospective study; interspinous decompression device

Funding

  1. SFMT Inc.
  2. Medtronic
  3. Department of Medical Statistics NHS Grampian

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Design: Prospective Observational Study. Objective: To prospectively assess the clinical outcome of patients treated for symptomatic spinal stenosis with the X-stop device. Summary of Background Data: The X-stop device is used in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. The preliminary results of this study of 40 patients at 1 year were published in 2007. The 2-year results of 57 patients are reported in this paper. Zucherman et al report 60% significant improvement at 1 year and 48.4% at 2 years. Methods: Fifty-seven consecutive patients with radiologically confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis were enrolled and treated with the X-stop device. The device was implanted at a maximum of 2 affected levels. Clinical response was evaluated with the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Oswestry Disability Index, and Short Form-36 questionnaires preoperatively and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: Of the 57 patients enrolled, 54 completed the ZCQ questionnaire at 1 year and 46 patients at 2 years. Clinically significant improvement was attained by 65% at 1 year and 57% at 2 years and 70% were satisfied with the outcome of the surgery. Single level and double level insertions did not have significant difference in clinical outcome. Conclusion: This study demonstrates with the use of ZCQ scores as primary outcome measures that improved clinical outcomes are maintained at 2 years after X-stop implantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available