» Articles » PMID: 21966217

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with a Novel Interspinous Spacer

Overview
Publisher Dove Medical Press
Specialty Geriatrics
Date 2011 Oct 4
PMID 21966217
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel, minimally invasive interspinous spacer in patients with moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods: A total of 53 patients (mean age, 70 ± 11 years; 45% female) with intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS, confirmed on imaging studies, were treated with the Superion(®) Interspinous Spacer (VertiFlex, Inc, San Clemente, CA) and returned for follow-up visits at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years. Study endpoints included axial and extremity pain severity with an 11-point numeric scale, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), back function with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health-related quality of life with the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores from the SF-12, and adverse events.

Results: Axial and extremity pain each decreased 54% (both P < 0.001) over the 2-year follow-up period. ZCQ symptom severity scores improved 43% (P < 0.001) and ZCQ physical function improved 44% (P < 0.001) from pre-treatment to 2 years post-treatment. A statistically significant 50% improvement (P < 0.001) also was noted in back function. PCS and MCS each improved 40% (both P < 0.001) from pre-treatment to 2 years. Clinical success rates at 2 years were 83%-89% for ZCQ subscores, 75% for ODI, 78% for PCS, and 80% for MCS. No device infection, implant breakage, migration, or pull-out was observed, although two (3.8%) patients underwent explant with subsequent laminectomy.

Conclusion: Moderate LSS can be effectively treated with a minimally invasive interspinous spacer. This device is appropriate for select patients who have failed nonoperative treatment measures for LSS and meet strict anatomical criteria.

Citing Articles

A comparison of MRI and intraoperative measurements to determine interspinous spacer device size.

Nelson C, Liao C, Malik T Pain Pract. 2025; 25(2):e70001.

PMID: 39835417 PMC: 11748108. DOI: 10.1111/papr.70001.


Management of cerebrospinal fluid leak after a minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure: illustrative case.

Pacult M, Farber S, Tumialan L, Oppenlander M J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2024; 8(24).

PMID: 39652849 PMC: 11633019. DOI: 10.3171/CASE24497.


Pain Management Interventions in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Literature Review.

Malik K, Giberson C, Ballard M, Camp N, Chan J Cureus. 2023; 15(8):e44116.

PMID: 37753034 PMC: 10518428. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44116.


Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.

Whang P, Tran O, Rosner H Adv Ther. 2023; 40(8):3512-3524.

PMID: 37289411 PMC: 10329952. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02562-6.


Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.

Rosner H, Tran O, Vajdi T, Vijjeswarapu M Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2023; 49(1):30-35.

PMID: 37247945 PMC: 10850670. DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2022-104236.


References
1.
Ostelo R, Deyo R, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M . Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(1):90-4. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10. View

2.
Zucherman J, Hsu K, Hartjen C, Mehalic T, Implicito D, Martin M . A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J. 2003; 13(1):22-31. PMC: 3468027. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0581-4. View

3.
Bono C, Vaccaro A . Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20(3):255-61. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180331352. View

4.
Verhoof O, Bron J, Wapstra F, van Royen B . High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2007; 17(2):188-92. PMC: 2226191. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0492-x. View

5.
Siddiqui M, Smith F, Wardlaw D . One-year results of X Stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(12):1345-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31805b7694. View