Complications and Radiographic Changes After Implantation of Interspinous Process Devices: Average Eight-year Follow-up

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2023 Aug 23

PMID 37612739

Authors

Kai-Yu Li

Hua-Lin Li

Lin-Jie Chen

Jian-Wei Xiang

Chen-Chao Li

Jun-Jie Weng

Nai-Feng Tian

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate complications, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results following Coflex implantation.

Methods: We retrospectively studied 66 patients who had decompressive surgery combined with Coflex implantation to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. All imaging data were collected and examined for imaging changes. Clinical outcomes, included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores, were evaluated before surgery, six months after surgery and at the last follow-up. The number of complications occurring after five years of follow-up was counted. All reoperation cases were meticulously recorded.

Results: 66 patients were followed up for 5-14 years. The VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved compared with baseline. Heterotopic Ossification (HO) was detectable in 59 (89.4%). 26 (39.4%) patients had osteolysis at the contact site of Coflex with the spinous process. Coflex loosening was detected in 39 (60%) patients. Spinous process anastomosis was found in 34 (51.5%) patients. There was a statistically significant difference in the VAS score of back pain between patients with and without spinous process anastomosis. Nine cases of lumbar spinal restenosis were observed, and prosthesis fracture was observed in one case.

Conclusion: Our study identified various imaging changes after Coflex implantation, and majority of them did not affect clinical outcomes. The majority of patients had HO, but osteolysis and Coflex loosening were relatively rare. The VAS score for back pain of these patients was higher if they have spinous process anastomosis. After five-year follow-up, we found lumbar spinal restenosis and prosthesis fracture cases.

Citing Articles

Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease with a Novel Interlaminar Screw Elastic Spacer Technique: A Finite Element Analysis.

Huang Z, Liu S, Nie M, Yuan J, Lin X, Chu X Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(10).

PMID: 37892934 PMC: 10604319. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10101204.

References

Lonne G, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordvall D, Gerdhem P, Lagerback T . Lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison of surgical practice variation and clinical outcome in three national spine registries. Spine J. 2018; 19(1):41-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.028. View

Wang J, Ullah S, Solano M, Overley S, Bumpass D, Mannen E . Changes in kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis during gait: systematic review. Spine J. 2021; 22(1):157-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.003. View

Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C . Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. 2016; 352:h6234. PMC: 6887476. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6234. View

Kurra S, Lavelle W, Silverstein M, Savage J, Orr R . Long-term outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative scoliosis. Spine J. 2017; 18(6):1014-1021. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.10.063. View

Katz J, Zimmerman Z, Mass H, Makhni M . Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review. JAMA. 2022; 327(17):1688-1699. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.5921. View

Lu K, Liliang P, Wang H, Liang C, Chen J, Chen T . Reduction in adjacent-segment degeneration after multilevel posterior lumbar interbody fusion with proximal DIAM implantation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015; 23(2):190-6. DOI: 10.3171/2014.12.SPINE14666. View

Khalaf K, Nikkhoo M . Comparative biomechanical analysis of rigid vs. flexible fixation devices for the lumbar spine: A geometrically patient-specific poroelastic finite element study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021; 212:106481. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106481. View

Davis R, Errico T, Bae H, Auerbach J . Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and.... Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(18):1529-39. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829a6d0a. View

Zhong J, OConnell B, Balouch E, Stickley C, Leon C, OMalley N . Patient Outcomes After Single-level Coflex Interspinous Implants Versus Single-level Laminectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021; 46(13):893-900. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003924. View

10.

Zhang Y, Lu D, Ji W, He F, Chen A, Yang H . Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Orthop Translat. 2021; 26:45-53. PMC: 7773978. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003. View

11.

Xu C, Ni W, Tian N, Hu X, Li F, Xu H . Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex). Int Orthop. 2013; 37(11):2199-204. PMC: 3824901. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2006-2. View

12.

Kong D, Kim E, Eoh W . One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability. J Korean Med Sci. 2007; 22(2):330-5. PMC: 2693603. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2007.22.2.330. View

13.

Tian N, Wu A, Wu L, Wu X, Wu Y, Zhang X . Incidence of heterotopic ossification after implantation of interspinous process devices. Neurosurg Focus. 2013; 35(2):E3. DOI: 10.3171/2013.3.FOCUS12406. View

14.

Trautwein F, Lowery G, Wharton N, Hipp J, Chomiak R . Determination of the in vivo posterior loading environment of the Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. Spine J. 2009; 10(3):244-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.10.010. View

15.

Li A, Li X, Yang Z . Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017; 40:60-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.056. View

16.

Lee N, Shin D, Kim K, Yoon D, Ha Y, Shin H . Paradoxical Radiographic Changes of Coflex Interspinous Device with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2015; 85:177-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.08.069. View

17.

Bae H, Davis R, Lauryssen C, Leary S, Maislin G, Musacchio Jr M . Three-Year Follow-up of the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization vs Instrumented Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2016; 79(2):169-81. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000001237. View

18.

Zheng X, Chen Z, Yu H, Zhuang J, Yu H, Chang Y . A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion. Exp Ther Med. 2021; 21(6):595. PMC: 8056116. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.10027. View

19.

Davis R, Auerbach J, Bae H, Errico T . Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US.... J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 19(2):174-84. DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12636. View

20.

Aggarwal N, Chow R . Real world adverse events of interspinous spacers using Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience data. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2021; 16(2):177-183. PMC: 8107255. DOI: 10.17085/apm.20093. View