Prospective 5-year Follow-up of L5-S1 Versus L4-5 Midline Decompression and Interspinous-interlaminar Fixation As a Stand-alone Treatment for Spinal Stenosis Compared with Laminectomies

Overview

Journal J Spine Surg

Date 2024 Jan 10

PMID 38196724

Authors

Kingsley R Chin

Jason A Seale

Erik Spayde

William M Costigan

Nishant Gohel

Daniel Aloise

Vito Lore

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Spinal stenosis treatment includes laminectomies with or without fusion or with interspinous distraction with or without fixation. Lack of published data on interspinous fixation devices (IFD) at L5-S1 is less considered as an option due to the smaller anatomical S1 spinous process and the higher stresses from the immobile sacrum. Our objective was to evaluate the outcomes of an IFD used as a stand-alone treatment for spinal stenosis at L5-S1 and L4-5 compared to historical data on open laminectomies.

Methods: Prospective comparative cohort study (Level 2) looking at collected preoperatively and postoperatively Visual Analog Scores (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data, complications, and revision rates on 100 consecutive patients with spinal stenosis treated with midline decompression and InSpan (InSpan LLC, Malden, MA, USA) IFD, at L5-S1 and L4-5, up to five-year follow-up. All patients were treated by a single surgeon in an academic private practice. Historical published outcome data for open laminectomies were compared.

Results: Among the 100 patients, 45 underwent surgery at L5-S1 with a mean VAS pain score that decreased by 75% and ODI improved by 63% (P<0.001). Fifty-five patients had surgery at L4-5 with mean VAS and ODI scores improved by 80% and 66% (P<0.001) respectively. Preoperative and postoperative ODI and preoperative VAS scores were similar at L5-S1 and L4-5, however, postoperative VAS scores were significantly less for L4-5 versus L5-S1 (P<0.01). All surgeries were completed in less than one hour. There was a total of one L4-5 revision (1.8%) and two L5-S1 revisions (4.4%). Comparable laminectomy data showed decrease in VAS and ODI scores by 51% and 62% (P<0.05). The reoperation rate for laminectomies at five to ten years varied up to 24%.

Conclusions: Spinal stenosis patients treated with midline decompression and InSpan IFD, used as a stand-alone treatment for interspinous-interlaminar fixation, at L4-5 and L5-S1, showed improved outcome scores and low complication and revision rates at five years and were comparable to historical open laminectomy data. InSpan is a successful substitute for laminectomies in selected patients and was performed in less than 60 minutes. We recommend choosing the appropriately sized implant to achieve adequate distraction decompression to avoid recurrent symptoms.

Citing Articles

Advancing the design of interspinous fixation devices for improved biomechanical performance: dual . single-locking set screw mechanisms and symmetrical . asymmetrical plate designs.

Chin K, Lore V, Spayde E, Costigan W, Irfan Z, Battel O J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(3):386-394.

PMID: 39399071 PMC: 11467278. DOI: 10.21037/jss-24-13.

References

Cairns K, Deer T, Sayed D, van Noort K, Liang K . Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion). Pain Med. 2019; 20(Suppl 2):S2-S8. PMC: 6896024. DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnz245. View

Raikar S, Patil A, Pandey D, Kumar S . Inter Spinal Fixation and Stabilization Device for Lumbar Radiculopathy and Back Pain. Cureus. 2022; 13(11):e19956. PMC: 8713432. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19956. View

Lawrence J, London N, Bohlman H, Chin K . Preoperative narcotic use as a predictor of clinical outcome: results following anterior cervical arthrodesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(19):2074-8. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181809f07. View

Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M, Fiore C, Faiola A, Puzzilli F . Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study. Neurosurg Focus. 2015; 39(4):E14. DOI: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15244. View

Pintauro M, Duffy A, Vahedi P, Rymarczuk G, Heller J . Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017; 10(2):189-198. PMC: 5435632. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-017-9401-z. View

Schulte L, OBrien J, Matteini L, Yu W . Change in sagittal balance with placement of an interspinous spacer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(20):E1302-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182077005. View

Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey A, Schmidt M . Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28(6):E8. DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1047. View

Rustenburg C, Emanuel K, Peeters M, Lems W, Vergroesen P, Smit T . Osteoarthritis and intervertebral disc degeneration: Quite different, quite similar. JOR Spine. 2019; 1(4):e1033. PMC: 6686805. DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1033. View

Boden S, Riew K, Yamaguchi K, Branch T, Schellinger D, Wiesel S . Orientation of the lumbar facet joints: association with degenerative disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(3):403-11. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199603000-00012. View

10.

Chin K, Pencle F, Coombs A, Brown M, Conklin K, ONeill A . Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(8):686-92. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001285. View

11.

Lonstein J, Denis F, Perra J, Pinto M, Smith M, Winter R . Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(11):1519-28. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199911000-00003. View

12.

Ghogawala Z, Dziura J, Butler W, Dai F, Terrin N, Magge S . Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(15):1424-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508788. View

13.

Suri P, Rainville J, Kalichman L, Katz J . Does this older adult with lower extremity pain have the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis?. JAMA. 2010; 304(23):2628-36. PMC: 3260477. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1833. View

14.

Chin K, Pencle F, Coombs A, Elsharkawy M, Packer C, Hothem E . Clinical Outcomes With Midline Cortical Bone Trajectory Pedicle Screws Versus Traditional Pedicle Screws in Moving Lumbar Fusions From Hospitals to Outpatient Surgery Centers. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 30(6):E791-E797. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000436. View

15.

Kim H, Bak K, Chun H, Oh S, Kang T, Yang M . Posterior interspinous fusion device for one-level fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease : comparison with pedicle screw fixation - preliminary report of at least one year follow up. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012; 52(4):359-64. PMC: 3488645. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2012.52.4.359. View

16.

Sajadi K, Azarhomayoun A, Jazayeri S, Baigi V, Ranjbar Hameghavandi M, Rostamkhani S . Long-Term Outcomes of Laminectomy in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian J Neurosurg. 2022; 17(2):141-155. PMC: 9473837. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756421. View

17.

Abbas J, Peled N, Hershkovitz I, Hamoud K . Facet Tropism and Orientation: Risk Factors for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:2453503. PMC: 7341411. DOI: 10.1155/2020/2453503. View

18.

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

19.

Nottmeier E, Seemer W, Young P . Placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws using three-dimensional image guidance: experience in a large patient cohort. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 10(1):33-9. DOI: 10.3171/2008.10.SPI08383. View

20.

Genevay S, Atlas S . Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010; 24(2):253-65. PMC: 2841052. DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.001. View