Five-year Radiological Outcomes Between Decompression Alone and Decompression with an Interlaminar Device for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Overview

Journal J Spine Surg

Date 2024 Oct 14

PMID 39399083

Authors

Chen Xi Kasia Chua

Meetrra Seyher Rajoo

Andrew Cherian Thomas

Sean Junn Kit Lee

Shen Liang

Naresh Kumar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There is limited literature regarding radiological outcomes in the use of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression compared to decompression alone (DA) for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). This study aims to assess and compare 5-year radiological outcomes following spinal decompression and decompression with ILD (D + ILD).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 94 patients who underwent spinal decompression with or without ILD insertion between 2007-2015. Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with or without ILD insertion. Those patients who accepted ILD insertion were placed in the D + ILD group (n=39); while those opting for DA, were placed in the DA group (n=55). Radiological indices were assessed preoperatively, immediate post-operative, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively.

Results: There were a total of 94 patients with 55 in the DA group and 39 in the D + ILD group. In both groups, there was no significant change post-operatively in the sagittal balance parameters namely, the mean pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI - LL) during the 5-year follow-up. Comparing between the groups, there was no significant difference in sagittal balance parameters. Comparing between DA versus D + ILD, there was no significant difference in overall lordosis, but the D + ILD had a significant reduction in sagittal angle (at the index level) of 2.3° compared to the DA group (P=0.01). In the control group, there was no significant difference in the anterior disc, posterior disc and foraminal height post-operatively. In the D + ILD group, there was a significant mean increase of 1.3 mm in anterior disc height, 1.8 mm in posterior disc height and 4.7 mm in foraminal height compared to the control group. In both groups, there was significant improvement in all clinical outcomes namely 36-item short form survey physical component summary (SF36 PCS), 36-item short form survey mental component summary (SF36 MCS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Comparing the groups, there was significant improvement in the D + ILD group in SF36 MCS (P=0.01) but no difference in SF36 PCS or VAS. Reoperation rates were equivalent.

Conclusions: Our study found that in the management of lumbar stenosis, the use of an ILD as an adjunct device compared to DA had significant improvement in anterior disc, posterior disc and foraminal height with expected focal kyphosis at the level of intervention without change in the lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance at 5 years.

References

Guo Z, Liu G, Wang L, Zhao Y, Zhao Y, Lu S . Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Am J Transl Res. 2022; 14(7):5155-5163. PMC: 9360861. View

Masuda S, Kanba Y, Kawai J, Ikeda N . Outcomes after decompression surgery without fusion for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and substantial low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2019; 29(1):147-152. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06130-x. View

Schwab F, Patel A, Ungar B, Farcy J, Lafage V . Adult spinal deformity-postoperative standing imbalance: how much can you tolerate? An overview of key parameters in assessing alignment and planning corrective surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(25):2224-31. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ee6bd4. View

Ogura Y, Shinozaki Y, Kobayashi Y, Kitagawa T, Yonezawa Y, Takahashi Y . Impact of decompression surgery without fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis on sagittal spinopelvic alignment: minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 30(6):743-749. DOI: 10.3171/2018.11.SPINE181092. View

Lee J, Hida K, Seki T, Iwasaki Y, Minoru A . An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17(1):72-7. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200402000-00013. View

Crawford R, Malone Q, Price R . Change of sagittal spinal alignment and its association with pain and function after lumbar surgery augmented with an interspinous implant. Scoliosis Spinal Disord. 2017; 12:2. PMC: 5282731. DOI: 10.1186/s13013-017-0109-z. View

Harroud A, Labelle H, Joncas J, Mac-Thiong J . Global sagittal alignment and health-related quality of life in lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2012; 22(4):849-56. PMC: 3631028. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2591-6. 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

Barrey C, Roussouly P, Perrin G, Le Huec J . Sagittal balance disorders in severe degenerative spine. Can we identify the compensatory mechanisms?. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 5:626-33. PMC: 3175931. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1930-3. View

10.

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

11.

Kumar N, Shah S, Ng Y, Pannierselvam V, Dasde S, Shen L . Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J. 2014; 8(2):161-9. PMC: 3996340. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2014.8.2.161. View

12.

Sobottke R, Schluter-Brust K, Kaulhausen T, Rollinghoff M, Joswig B, Stutzer H . Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(10):1494-503. PMC: 2899374. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1081-y. View

13.

Glassman S, Bridwell K, Dimar J, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F . The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(18):2024-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000179086.30449.96. View

14.

Krakowiak M, Rulewska N, Rudas M, Broda M, Sabramowicz M, Jaremko A . Interspinous Process Devices Do Not Reduce Intervertebral Foramina and Discs Heights on Adjacent Segments. J Pain Res. 2022; 15:1971-1982. PMC: 9292060. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S356898. View

15.

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

16.

Bouknaitir J, Carreon L, Brorson S, Andersen M . Change in sagittal alignment after decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis without significant deformity: a prospective cohort study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022; 37(1):57-63. DOI: 10.3171/2021.10.SPINE21445. View

17.

Le Huec J, Charosky S, Barrey C, Rigal J, Aunoble S . Sagittal imbalance cascade for simple degenerative spine and consequences: algorithm of decision for appropriate treatment. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20 Suppl 5:699-703. PMC: 3175932. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1938-8. View

18.

Ochtman A, Kruyt M, Jacobs W, Kersten R, Le Huec J, Oner F . Surgical Restoration of Sagittal Alignment of the Spine: Correlation with Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JBJS Rev. 2020; 8(8):e1900100. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00100. View

19.

Chang H . Effect of Sagittal Spinal Balance on the Outcome of Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Canal Stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2018; 119:e200-e208. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.104. View

20.

Kumar N, Thomas A, Rajoo M, Lee S, Kumar L, Shen L . Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2023; 32(4):1367-1374. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-023-07610-x. View