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:STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review using a modified network analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY: Traditionally, the most effective treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is through surgical decompression. Recently, interspinous devices have been used in lieu of standard laminectomy. METHODS: A review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing surgical decompression with interspinous-device placement for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. First, studies making the direct comparison (cohort or randomized trials) were searched. Second, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing each treatment to conservative management were searched to allow for an indirect comparison through a modified network analysis approach. Comparison studies involving simultaneous decompression with placement of an interspinous device were not included. Studies that did not have a comparison group were not included since a treatment effect could not be calculated. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. The strengths of evidence for indirect comparisons were downgraded. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified five studies meeting our inclusion criteria. No RCTs or cohort studies were identified that made the direct comparison of interspinous-device placement with surgical decompression. For the indirect comparison, three RCTs compared surgical decompression to conservative management and two RCTs compared interspinous-device placement to conservative management. There was low evidence supporting greater treatment effects for interspinous-device placement compared to decompression for disability and pain outcomes at 12 months. There was low evidence demonstrating little to no difference in treatment effects between the groups for walking distance and complication rates. CONCLUSION: The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression. The low evidence suggests that any further research is very likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. No significant treatment effect differences were observed for postoperative walking distance improvement or complication rates; however, findings should be considered with caution because of indirect comparisons and short follow-up periods.

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