In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • Spinous process distraction and fusion for degenerative lumbar stenosis: a large case series at a single institution

    Final Number:
    1258

    Authors:
    Hakeem Jon Shakir MD; Lindsay Lipinski MD; Joshua Meyers MD; Alex Garson; Sara Diletti; John Pollina MD; Eric P. Roger MD, BSc, FRCS(C)

    Study Design:
    Clinical Trial

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2014 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Interspinous process distraction devices have been used in patients with lumbar stenosis and neurogenic claudication with limited success. The sp-fix (Globus Medical Inc., Audubon, PA) is a device that combines distraction with a fusion scaffold. This alteration may ameliorate the weaknesses of the early device due to added biomechanical stability.

    Methods: We report a retrospective case series of 102 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for placement of the SP-Fix device for degenerative lumbar stenosis with neurogenic claudication (with and without scoliosis and/or spondylolisthesis) and analyze our institution’s experience in patient-reported symptomatology (using the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), complication rate, and reoperation rate in this population.

    Results: Of the 102 patients, 44% had spondylolisthesis, 5% had scoliosis, 5% had both scoliosis and spondylolisthesis, and 46% had spinal stenosis without deformity. 8.8% of patients required reoperation (5 for spinous process fracture, 2 for infection, and 2 for failure of symptomatic improvement). Forty-eight patients completed preoperative and postoperative ODI surveys at the 3-month followup, with a mean improvement of 34%. On 91 patients in which data was available, 82% self-reported improvement in leg pain

    Conclusions: The case series suggests that patient who undergo placement of the sp-fix experience short-term symptom improvement and lower rates of reoperation than prior generation spinous process distraction devices. Long-term follow up is required to validate the use of this device as an alternative to traditional lumbar laminectomy with or without fusion as a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

    Patient Care: SP-fix provides a novel, less invasive alternative for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication

    Learning Objectives: By conclusion of this session, participants should 1) gain better insight into use of interspinous fixation devices 2) understand the indications for sp-fix placement 3) discuss the benefits and drawbacks of sp-fix placement when compared to traditional approaches.

    References: References 1. Alfieri A, Gazzeri R, Prell J, Scheller C, Rachinger J, Strauss C, et al: Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements. Neurosurg Rev 35:477-484, 2012 2. Beckers L, Bekaert J: The role of lordosis. Acta Orthop Belg 57 Suppl 1:198-202, 1991 3. Buric J, Pulidori M, Sinan T, Mehraj S: DIAM device for low back pain in degenerative disc disease: 24 months follow-up. Acta Neurochir Suppl 108:177-182, 2011 4. Celik H, Derincek A, Koksal I: Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height? Turk Neurosurg 22:50-54, 2012 5. Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A, Tosteson AN, Jarvik JG, Kreuter W, et al: Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the medicare population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:865-872, 2013 6. Gunzburg R, Szpalski M: The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12 Suppl 2:S176-180, 2003 7. Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Hartjen CA, Mehalic TF, Implicito DA, Martin MJ, et al: Quality of life of lumbar stenosis-treated patients in whom the X STOP interspinous device was implanted. J Neurosurg Spine 5:500-507, 2006 8. Mehra A, Baker D, Disney S, Pynsent PB: Oswestry Disability Index scoring made easy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:497-499, 2008 9. Patil S, Burton M, Storey C, Glenn C, Marino A, Nanda A: Evaluation of interspinous process distraction device (X-STOP) in a representative patient cohort. World Neurosurg 80:213-217, 2013 10. Ploumis A, Christodoulou P, Kapoutsis D, Gelalis I, Vraggalas V, Beris A: Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microdecompression and interspinous distraction device insertion. A case series. J Orthop Surg Res 7:35, 2012 11. Schulte LM, O'Brien JR, Matteini LE, Yu WD: Change in sagittal balance with placement of an interspinous spacer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1302-1305, 2011 12. Siddiqui M, Nicol M, Karadimas E, Smith F, Wardlaw D: The positional magnetic resonance imaging changes in the lumbar spine following insertion of a novel interspinous process distraction device. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2677-2682, 2005 13. Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ: High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17:188-192, 2008

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy