Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device
Lumbar spinal stenosis is a degenerative disease of the elderly population. Although microsurgical decompression has shown good long-term results, percutaneous techniques could provide an alternative in the presence of significant comorbidities.
Eighty-seven interspinous process decompression devices (In-space; Synthes, Umkirch, Germany) were implanted percutaneously in up to three segments of 50 patients. Outcome was assessed directly after surgery, at 6–8 weeks, and at average follow-up of 1 year (11.8 ± 6 months). Assessment included complications, pain and spinal claudication, neurodeficit, time to recurrence of symptoms, and time to second surgery. Subgroups with additional low back pain at presentation and mild spondylolisthesis were analyzed separately.
Intraoperative complications were rare (one misplacement and two cases of failed implantation); average operation time was 16.4 ± 12.2 min per segment. Initial response was very good with 72% good or excellent relief of symptoms. After a 1-year follow-up, 42% reported of lasting relief from spinal claudication. Thirteen percent of these complained about lasting or new-onset low back pain. A second surgery had been performed in 22%. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients presenting with additional low back pain and spondylolisthesis patients. No significant differences could be noted between subgroups.
The In-space is a percutaneous treatment option of claudication in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Compared with microsurgical decompression surgery, recurrence rate within 1 year is, however, high and the device seems not suitable for the treatment of low back pain. Therefore, the authors suggest that the device should presently be used primarily in controlled clinical trials in order to get more information concerning the optimal indication.
- Amundsen, T, Weber, H, Nordal, HJ, Magnaes, B, Abdelnoor, M, Lilleâs, F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine 25: pp. 1424-35 CrossRef
- Anjarwalla, NK, Brown, LC, McGregor, AH (2007) The outcome of spinal decompression surgery 5 years on. Eur Spine J 16: pp. 1842-7 CrossRef
- Atlas, SJ, Delitto, A (2006) Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443: pp. 198-207 CrossRef
- Barbagallo, GM, Olindo, G, Corbino, L, Albanese, V (2009) Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 65: pp. 111-19 CrossRef
- Brussee, P, Hauth, J, Donk, RD, Verbeek, AL (2008) Self-rated evaluation of outcome of the implantation of interspinous process distraction (X-Stop) for neurogenic claudication. Eur Spine J 17: pp. 200-3 CrossRef
- Buchbinder, R, Osborne, RH, Ebeling, PR, Wark, JD, Mitchell, P, Wriedt, C, Graves, S, Staples, MP, Murphy, B (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361: pp. 557-68 CrossRef
- Castro-Menéndez, M, Bravo Ricoy, JA, Casal-Moro, R, Hernández-Blanco, M, Jorge-Barreiro, FJ (2009) Midterm outcome after microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: 4-year prospective study. Neurosurgery 65: pp. 100-10 CrossRef
- Chiu, JC (2006) Interspinous process decompression (IPD) system (X-STOP) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surg Technol Int 15: pp. 265-75
- Chung, SS, Lee, CS, Kim, SH, Chung, MW, Ahn, JM (2000) Effect of low back posture on the morphology of the spinal canal. Skeletal Radiol 29: pp. 217-23 CrossRef
- Costa, F, Sassi, M, Cardia, A, Ortolina, A, Santis, A, Luccarell, G, Fornari, M (2007) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine 7: pp. 579-86 CrossRef
- Gu, Y, Chen, L, Yang, HL, Chen, XQ, Dong, RB, Han, GS, Tang, TS, Zhang, ZM (2009) Efficacy of surgery and type of fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Neurosci 16: pp. 1291-5 CrossRef
- Kallmes, DF, Comstock, BA, Heagerty, PJ, Turner, JA, Wilson, DJ, Diamond, TH, Edwards, R, Gray, LA, Stout, L, Owen, S, Hollingworth, W, Ghdoke, B, Annesley-Williams, DJ, Ralston, SH, Jarvik, JG (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361: pp. 569-79 CrossRef
- Korovessis, P, Repantis, T, Zacharatos, S, Zafiropoulos, A (2009) Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?. Eur Spine J 18: pp. 830-40 CrossRef
- Kuchta, J, Sobottke, R, Eysel, P, Simons, P (2009) Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 18: pp. 823-9 CrossRef
- Lauryssen, C (2007) Appropriate selection of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis for interspinous process decompression with the X STOP device. Neurosurg Focus 22: pp. E5 CrossRef
- Lindsey, DP, Swanson, KE, Fuchs, P, Hsu, KY, Zucherman, JF, Yerby, SA (2003) The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine 28: pp. 2192-7 CrossRef
- Liu, G, Zhao, JN, Dezawa, A (2008) Endoscopic decompression combined with interspinous process implant fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin J Traumatol 11: pp. 364-7 CrossRef
- Malmivaara, A, Slätis, P, Heliövaara, M, Sainio, P, Kinnunen, H, Kankare, J, Dalin-Hirvonen, N, Seitsalo, S, Herno, A, Kortekangas, P, Niinimäki, T, Rönty, H, Tallroth, K, Turunen, V, Knekt, P, Härkänen, T, Hurri, H (2007) Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled tria. Spine 32: pp. 1-8 CrossRef
- Oertel, MF, Ryang, YM, Korinth, MC, Gilsbach, JM, Rohde, V (2006) Long-term results of microsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. Neurosurgery 59: pp. 1264-9 CrossRef
- Porter, RW (1996) Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 21: pp. 2046-52 CrossRef
- Preston, SD, Southall, AR, Nel, M, Das, SK (2008) Geriatric surgery is about disease, not age. J R Soc Med 101: pp. 409-15 CrossRef
- Sengupta, DK, Herkowitz, HN (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Treatment strategies and indications for surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 34: pp. 281-95 CrossRef
- Sobottke, R, Schlüter-Brust, K, Kaulhausen, T, Röllinghoff, M, Joswig, B, Stützer, H, Eysel, P, Simons, P, Kuchta, J (2009) Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?. Eur Spine J 18: pp. 1494-503 CrossRef
- Tsai, KJ, Murakami, H, Lowery, GL, Hutton, WC (2006) A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex) used to stabilize the lumbar spine. J Surg Orthop Adv 15: pp. 167-72
- Turrentine, FE, Wang, H, Simpson, VB, Jones, RS (2006) Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 203: pp. 865-77 CrossRef
- U.S. institutes of health. A study of the in-space device for treatment of moderate spinal stenosis. June 11, 2008. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/. Accessed June 1, 2010.
- Verhoof, OJ, Bron, JL, Wapstra, FH, Royen, BJ (2008) 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: pp. 188-92 CrossRef
- Vogt, MT, Cawthon, PM, Kang, JD, Donaldson, WF, Cauley, JA, Nevitt, MC (2006) Prevalence of symptoms of cervical and lumbar stenosis among participants in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study. Spine 31: pp. 1445-51 CrossRef
- Weinstein, JN, Tosteson, TD, Lurie, JD, Tosteson, AN, Blood, E, Hanscom, B, Herkowitz, H, Cammisa, F, Albert, T, Boden, SD, Hilibrand, A, Goldberg, H, Berven, S, An, H (2008) Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 358: pp. 794-810 CrossRef
- Yano S, Hida K, Seki T, Aoyama T, Akino M, Iwasaki Y (2008) A new ceramic interspinous process spacer for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Neurosurgery 63(1 Suppl 1):ONS108-13.
- Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Volume 152, Issue 11 , pp 1961-1967
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Vienna
- Additional Links
- Interspinous process decompression (IPD)
- Lumbar spinal stenosis
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
- 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University-Hospital Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany