4.3 Article

Clinical analysis following lumbar interspinous devices implant: where we are and where we go

Journal

SPINAL CORD
Volume 52, Issue 10, Pages 740-743

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2014.100

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study design: Retrospective study. Objectives: We present our experience with patients treated with interspinous devices who are affected by neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) or lumbar disc herniation (LDH) where the interspinous system has been inserted following microdiscectomy. Methods: This study included patients (n = 100) with NIC secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis (group 1), and patients (n = 100) with LDH (group 2) in whom the interspinous device has been implanted following radicular decompression in a period spanning 6 years. The latter have been compared with a homogenous group of patients (n = 100) where no interspinous system has been implanted following microdiscectomy (group 3). Clinical findings have been observed preoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months and every year post-operatively using dedicated questionnaires (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index). Results: Six years following surgical treatment, 85% of the patients of group 1 presented good improvement of symptoms and 90% of the patients referred satisfaction for surgery. Only few cases needed reoperation. In one case, the device was removed and in two cases, we changed the surgical strategy. Overall, patients of group 2 presented significantly less lumbar disc recurrences compared with group 3 (P<0.05) and better clinical outcome when compared with the same group (P<0.01). Conclusion: According to our features, interspinous systems showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability for up to 6 years. Furthermore, interspinous devices have shown better clinical outcome and less lumbar disc recurrences when associated with standard microdiscectomy. These data, however, need further studies and a longer period of follow-up.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available