Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Interspinous Implant with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Elderly Patients

  • Ryu, Sung-Joo (Department of Neurosurgery, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, In-Soo (Department of Neurosurgery, Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2010.02.24
  • Accepted : 2010.05.17
  • Published : 2010.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : This study assessed the safety and efficacy of one level unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) with the placement of a device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) compared with one level ULBD only in elderly patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods : A non randomized prospective analysis was performed on 16 patients who underwent one level ULBD with DIAM (Group A) and 20 patients with one level ULBD only (Group B) between February 2007 and March 2008. Radiographic imaging, visual analog scale (VAS) and MacNab outcome scale were obtained before and after surgery at a mean interval of 21 months (range 17-27 months). Results : The disc height, interpedicular distance, slip distance and segmental lordotic angle were similar between two groups. In the group A, there was no significant difference between the pre- and post-operative imaging in terms of the sagittal balance and disc height. Both groups showed significant improvement in the clinical outcomes. In addition, there was significantly less low-back pain in the group A than in the group B at the last follow up, while the clinical improvement of the leg pain and MacNab outcome scale showed no significant difference in the two groups. There were no major complications or DIAM associated complications. Conclusion : ULBD with DIAM is a safe and efficacious treatment for selective elderly patients with DLSS, particularly for relieving low back pain comparing to ULBD. ULBD with DIAM did not alter the disc height or sagittal alignment at the mean 21 months follow-up interval.

Keywords

References

  1. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR : Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 20 : 255-261, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180331352
  2. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Howard J : Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease : a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J 8 : 747-755, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.013
  3. Caserta S, La Maida GA, Misaggi B, Peroni D, Pietrabissa R, Raimondi MT, et al. : Elastic stabilization alone or combined with rigid fusion in spinal surgery : a biomechanical study and clinical experience based on 82 cases. Eur Spine J 11 : S192-S197, 2002
  4. Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG : Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : S73-S78, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000174532.58468.6c
  5. Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Ortolina A, De Santis A, Luccarell G, et al. : Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis : analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7 : 579-586, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/12/579
  6. Gunzburg R, Szpalski M : The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12 : S176-S180, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0611-2
  7. Gunzburg R, Szpalski M, Callary SA, Colloca CJ, Kosmopoulos V, Harrison D, et al. : Effect of a novel interspinous implant on lumbar spinal range of motion. Eur Spine J 18 : 696-703, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0890-3
  8. Hopp E, Tsou PM : Postdecompression lumbar instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227 : 143-151, 1988
  9. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K : Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 11 : 107-110, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198603000-00001
  10. Kalbarczyk A, Lukes A, Seiler RW : Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 140 : 637-641, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007010050155
  11. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel AH, Liang MH : Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 92-98, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199601010-00022
  12. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG, McInnes JM, Fossel AH, Liang MH : The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73 : 809-816, 1991 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199173060-00003
  13. Kim KA, McDonald M, Pik JH, Khoueir P, Wang MY : Dynamic intraspinous spacer technology for posterior stabilization : case-control study on the safety, sagittal angulation, and pain outcome at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Neurosurgical Focus 22 : E7, 2007
  14. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A : Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J 18 : 830-840, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0976-y
  15. Kosaka H, Sairyo K, Biyani A, Leaman D, Yeasting R, Higashino K, et al. : Pathomechanism of loss of elasticity and hypertrophy of lumbar ligamentum flavum in elderly patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 2805-2811, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b650f
  16. Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA : The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 2192-2197, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000084877.88192.8E
  17. Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, et al. : Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 1-8, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d
  18. Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S, Carangelo B, Zalaffi A, Muzii FV, et al. : Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl 92 : 129-131, 2005
  19. Minns RJ, Walsh WK : Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22 : 1819-1825; discussion 1826-1827, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199708150-00004
  20. Palmer S, Mahar A, Oka R : Biomechanical and radiographic analysis of a novel, minimally invasive, extension-limiting device for the lumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus 22 : E4, 2007
  21. Sobottke R, Schlüter-Brust K, Kaulhausen T, Röllinghoff M, Joswig B, Stützer H, et al. : Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS : is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome? Eur Spine J 18 : 1494-1503, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1081-y
  22. Swanson KE, Lindsey DP, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA : The effects of an interspinous implant on intervertebral disc pressures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 26-32, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301010-00008
  23. Taylor J, Pupin P, Delajoux S, Palmer S : Device for intervertebral assisted motion : technique and initial results. Neurosurg Focus 22 : E6, 2007
  24. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, et al. : Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358 : 794-810, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707136
  25. Wiseman CM, Lindsey DP, Fredrick AD, Yerby SA : The effect of an interspinous process implant on facet loading during extension. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : 903-907, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000158876.51771.f8
  26. Xu WX, Wang J, Lu D, Wu Z, Zhu WM, Zhang C : [Surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis by different methods.] Zhongguo Gu Shang 22 : 738-740, 2009
  27. Yong-Hing K, Kirkaldy-Willis WH : The pathophysiology of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Orthop Clin North Am 14 : 491-504, 1983

Cited by

  1. Das interspinöse Implantat „InSWing®“ an der Lendenwirbelsäule vol.22, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-010-9035-4
  2. Systematic Safety Review and Meta‐Analysis of Procedural Experience Using Percutaneous Access to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis vol.13, pp.12, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01504.x
  3. Functional and Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Following Percutaneous Decompression vol.12, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00565.x
  4. PAIN AND FUNCTION ONE YEAR AFTER DECOMPRESSIVE DISC SURGERY: CASES AUGMENTED WITH THE DIAM INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT VERSUS THOSE RECEIVING MICRODISCECTOMY vol.15, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218957712500133
  5. A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOR TWO YEARS AFTER LUMBAR SURGERY AUGMENTED WITH DIAM®INTERSPINOUS IMPLANT vol.15, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218957712500182
  6. Long-term Results of Percutaneous Lumbar Decompression for LSS: Two-Year Outcomes vol.29, pp.11, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1097/ajp.0b013e31827fb803
  7. Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study vol.16, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0786-9
  8. Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety between Interspinous Process Distraction Device and Open Decompression Surgery in Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta Analysis vol.28, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3109/08941939.2014.932474
  9. Which functional outcome parameters correlate better with elderly patients' satisfaction after non-fusion lumbar spine surgery? vol.63, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.23736/s0390-5616.17.03977-7