Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interspinous implant in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Prospective study on clinical outcome of interspinous process distraction with X-STOP in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Purpose

To determine the safety and efficacy of X-STOP interspinous distractor.

Method

A total of 45 patients (24 males, 21 females) with lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with X-STOP system. They had preoperative and postoperative (3, 6 and 12 months) assessments using the Back and Sciatica Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the SF12 Questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was assessed at each visit.

Results

The average VAS of back and leg pain was 6.7 and 6.8 preoperatively and improved to 2.7 and 2.8 postoperatively. A total of 68% had improvement in their walking distance following the operation. The average preoperative ODI of 42% improved to 16.38% postoperatively (P < 0.0001). A total of 70% of patients had improvement in physical score and 80% in mental score. A total of 82% were very satisfied with the outcome of the operation.

Conclusion

X-STOP implant is clinically effective with fewer complications and it is a simple procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Epstein NE, Maldonado VC, Cusick JF (1998) Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Surg Neurol 50:3–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall S, Bartleson JD, Onofrio BM et al (1985) Lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical features, diagnostic procedures and result of surgical treatment in 68 patients. Ann Int Med 103:271–275

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Alvarez JA, Hardy RH Jr (1998) Lumbar spinal stenosis: a common cause of back and leg pain. Am Fam Physician 57:1825–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Szpalski M, Gunzburg R (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly: an overview. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl):170–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee J, Hida K et al (2004) An interspinous process distractor (XSTOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patietns: preliminary experience in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 17(1):72–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz LN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC et al (1996) Seven to 10 year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:92–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. de Graff I, Park A et al (2006) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systemic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine 31(10):1168–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ et al (1999) Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 24:2229–2233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW et al (1995) Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 20:1155–1160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Airaksinen O, Herno A, Turunen V et al (1997) Surgical outcome of 438 patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 22:2278–2282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnsson KE, Uden A, Rossen I (1991) The effect of decompression on the natural course of spinal stenosis. A comparison of surgically treated and untreated patients. Spine 16:615–619

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunzburg R, Keller TS, Szpalski M et al (2003) Clinical and psychofunctional measures of conservative decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 12:197–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jonsson B, Stromqvist B (1994) Lumbar spine surgery in the elderly. Complications and surgical results. Spine 19:1431–1435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Benz RJ, Ibrahim ZG, Afshr P et al (2001) Predicting complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression. Clin Orthop 384:116–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reindl R, Steffen T, Cohen L et al (2003) Elective lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: is it a high risk operation? Can J Surg 46:43–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L et al (1992) Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of literature. Spine 17:1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalbarczyk A, Lukes A, Seiler RW (1998) Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Acta Neurochir 140:637–641

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Galliano K, Obwegeser A, Gabl MV et al (2005) Long term outcome of laminectomy for spinal stenosis in Octagenarians. Spine 30(3):332–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zucherman J, Hsu K, Hartjen C, Mehalic Thomas F, Implicito D et al (2005) Multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 30(12):1351–1358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

No funds were received in support of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex, London, HA7 4LP, UK

    Arup Kumar Bhadra, A. S. Raman, S. Tucker & H. H. Noordeen

Authors
  1. Arup Kumar Bhadra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. S. Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Tucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. H. Noordeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arup Kumar Bhadra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhadra, A.K., Raman, A.S., Tucker, S. et al. Interspinous implant in lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective cohort. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 18, 489–493 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-008-0340-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-008-0340-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation