Dataset Information

PEEK versus Silicon Interspinous Spacer for Reduction of Supradjacent Segment Degeneration following Decompression and Short-Segment Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A retrospective study that aims to report Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD) incidence and spinopelvic balance in short lumbosacral instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Although ASD is a common complication following lumbar fusion, the effect of an interspinous spacer (IS) in the supradjacent segment in short lumbosacral instrumented fusion and its interaction with spinopelvic balance has not been studied adequately.

Methods

From 55 consecutive age-, diagnosis-, and gender-matched patients aged 60±11 years, 17 (Group R) received PEEK IS; 18 (Group S) received Silicon IS compared with 20 controls (Group C) without receiving any IS. The functional outcome was evaluated with VAS and ODI. Spinopelvic balance was evaluated using SVA, T₁₂-S₁ LL, SS, PT, PI, and supradjacent segment disc heights. All spines were preoperatively balanced (SVA<40 mm).

Results

The follow-up averaged out to 56±11 months. VAS and ODI scores improved postoperatively in all 3 groups. SS and anterior disc height in the supradjacent free segment increased postoperatively compensatory to spinal alterations. Although 6, 4, and 5 patients from Groups R, S, and C, respectively, showed radiological progression of the preoperative degeneration grade in the supradjacent disc, only 2, 1, and 2 patients in Groups R, S, and C, respectively, developed symptomatic ASD in the 1^st supradjacent segment solely. No additional surgery was required in any patient.

Conclusion

ASD incidence in the supradjacent segment following short lumbar fusion did not statistically significantly differ between PEEK and Silicon IS. There was a trend towards lower ASD incidence in Silicon IS. IS reduced ASD in both 1^st and 2^nd supradjacent segments. The authors speculate that soft stabilization provided by IS may be more advantageous for preventing ASD. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT03477955.

SUBMITTER: Korovessis P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6106718 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PEEK versus Silicon Interspinous Spacer for Reduction of Supradjacent Segment Degeneration following Decompression and Short-Segment Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Korovessis Panagiotis P Syrimpeis Vasileios V Tsekouras Vasileios V Vardakastanis Konstantinos K Fennema Peter P

Advances in orthopedics 20180808

<h4>Purpose</h4>A retrospective study that aims to report Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD) incidence and spinopelvic balance in short lumbosacral instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Although ASD is a common complication following lumbar fusion, the effect of an interspinous spacer (IS) in the supradjacent segment in short lumbosacral instrumented fusion and its interaction with spinopelvic balance has not been studied adequately.<h4>Methods</h4>From 55 consecutive age-, d ...[more]

PMID: 30174959

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition related to aging in which structural changes cause narrowing of the central canal and intervertebral foramen. It is currently the leading cause for spinal surgery in patients over 65 years. Interspinous process devices (IPDs) were introduced as a less invasive surgical alternative, but questions regarding safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are still unanswered. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to provide complete and reliable information regarding benefits and harms of IPDs when compared to conservative treatment or decompression surgery and suggest directions for forthcoming RCTs. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and LILACS for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, without language or period restrictions, comparing IPDs to conservative treatment or decompressive surgery in adults with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spine stenosis. Data extraction and analysis were conducted following the Cochrane Handbook. Primary outcomes were pain assessment, functional impairment, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications, and cost-effectiveness. This systematic review was registered at Prospero (International prospective register of systematic reviews) under number 42015023604. RESULTS:The search strategy resulted in 17 potentially eligible reports. At the end, nine reports were included and eight were excluded. Overall quality of evidence was low. One trial compared IPDs to conservative treatment: IPDs presented better pain, functional status, quality of life outcomes, and higher complication risk. Five trials compared IPDs to decompressive surgery: pain, functional status, and quality of life had similar outcomes. IPD implant presented a significantly higher risk of reoperation. We found low-quality evidence that IPDs resulted in similar outcomes when compared to standard decompression surgery. Primary and secondary outcomes were not measured in all studies and were often published in incomplete form. Subgroup analysis was not feasible. Difficulty in contacting authors may have prevented us of including data in quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Patients submitted to IPD implants had significantly higher rates of reoperation, with lower cost-effectiveness. Future trials should improve in design quality and data reporting, with longer follow-up periods.

Project description:BackgroundClinically, there are substantive practice variations in surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. We aimed at evaluating whether decompression alone outcomes for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are comparable to those of decompression with fusion.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 16th, 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing decompression alone with decompression and fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included in this study. There were no language limitations. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results in the random-effects model. Main outcomes included Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain, clinical satisfaction, complication and reoperation rates. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022310645).FindingsThirty-three studies (6 RCTs and 27 cohort studies) involving 94 953 participants were included. Differences in post-operative ODI between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant. A small difference for back (MD, 0.13; [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18]; I 2:0.00%) and leg pain (MD, 0.30; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]; I 2:48.35%) was observed on the 3rd post-operative month. The results did not reveal significant differences in leg pain and back pain between decompression alone and fusion groups on the 6th, 12th, and 24th post-operative months. Difference in clinical satisfaction between decompression alone and decompression with fusion were not significant from RCTs (OR, 0.26; [95% CI, 0.03 to 1.92]; I 2:83.27%). Complications (OR, 1.54; [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.05]; I 2:48.88%), operation time (MD, 83.39; [95% CI, 55.93 to 110.85]; I 2:98.75%), intra-operative blood loss (MD, 264.58; [95% CI, 174.99 to 354.16]; I 2:95.61%) and length of hospital stay (MD, 2.85; [95% CI, 1.60 to 4.10]; I 2:99.49%) were higher with fusion.InterpretationClinical effectiveness of decompression alone was comparable to that of decompression with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Decompression alone is recommended for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.FundingThis work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81871818), Tangdu Hospital Seed Talent Program (Fei-Long Wei), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (No.2019JM-265) and Social Talent Fund of Tangdu Hospital (No.2021SHRC034).

Dataset Information

PEEK versus Silicon Interspinous Spacer for Reduction of Supradjacent Segment Degeneration following Decompression and Short-Segment Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

PEEK versus Silicon Interspinous Spacer for Reduction of Supradjacent Segment Degeneration following Decompression and Short-Segment Instrumentation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets