Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Minimally Invasive Treatment with Bilateral Transpedicular Facet Augmentation System
- 783 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization device PDS Percudyn System™ Anchor and Stabilizer (Interventional Spine Inc., Irvine, CA) as alternative minimally invasive treatment for patients with lumbar spine stenosis.
Twenty-four consecutive patients (8 women, 16 men; mean age 61.8 yr) with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent implantation of the minimally invasive pedicle screw-based device for posterior dynamic stabilization. Inclusion criteria were lumbar stenosis without signs of instability, resistant to conservative treatment, and eligible to traditional surgical posterior decompression.
Twenty patients (83 %) progressively improved during the 1-year follow-up. Four (17 %) patients did not show any improvement and opted for surgical posterior decompression. For both responder and nonresponder patients, no device-related complications were reported.
Minimally invasive PDS Percudyn System™ has effectively improved the clinical setting of 83 % of highly selected patients treated, delaying the need for traditional surgical therapy.
KeywordsLumbar spine stenosis Low back pain Dynamic stabilization Transpedicular augmentation Spine articular facets
Conflict of Interest
We declare we have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Denis F (1983) The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spinal injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8(8):817–831Google Scholar
- 3.Hart LG, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC (1995) Physician office visits for low back pain. Frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a U.S. national survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(1):11–19Google Scholar
- 6.Gibson JN, Waddell G (2005) Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD001352Google Scholar
- 7.Genevay S, Atlas SJ (2010) Lumbar spinal stenosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24(2):253–65Google Scholar
- 8.Botwin KP, Gruber RD (2003) Lumbar spinal stenosis: anatomy and pathogenesis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 14(1):1–15Google Scholar
- 10.Wassenaar M, van Rijn RM, van Tulder MW et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review. Eur Spine J 21(2):220–227Google Scholar
- 11.Van Rijn RM, Wassenaar M, Verhagen AP et al (2011) Computed tomography for the diagnosis of lumbar spinal pathology in adult patients with low back pain or sciatica: a diagnostic systematic review. Eur Spine J 21(2):228–239Google Scholar
- 14.Jönsson B, Strömqvist B (1995) Motor affliction of the L5 nerve root in lumbar nerve root compression syndromes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(18):2012–2015Google Scholar
- 17.Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN et al (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(6):741–749Google Scholar
- 18.Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, Keller RB et al (1996) The maine lumbar spine study, part III. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:1787–1794; discussion 1794–1795Google Scholar
- 20.Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ et al (1995) Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 20:1899–1908; discussion 1909Google Scholar
- 21.Genevay S, Atlas SJ, Katz JN (2010) Variation in eligibility criteria from studies of radiculopathy due to a herniated disc and of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis: a structured literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(7):803–811Google Scholar
- 22.Watters WC 3rd, Baisden J, Gilbert TJ et al (2008) North American Spine Society. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 8(2):305–310Google Scholar
- 27.Amoretti N, Huwart L, Hauger O et al (2012) Computed tomography- and fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous screw fixation of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults: a new technique. Eur Radiol 2012 Jun 15 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
- 31.Nockels RP (2005) Dynamic stabilization in the surgical management of painful lumbar spinal disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(16 Suppl):S68–72Google Scholar
- 32.Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35(1):43–56Google Scholar
- 33.Masala S, Fiori R, Bartolucci DA et al (2012) Percutaneous decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis with a new interspinous device. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35(2):368–374Google Scholar
- 35.Tamburrelli FC, Proietti L, Logroscino CA (2011) Critical analysis of lumbar interspinous devices failures: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S27–S35Google Scholar
- 37.Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK (2002) Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S198–S205Google Scholar
- 38.Kocak T, Cakir B, Reichel H et al (2010) Screw loosening after posterior dynamic stabilization–review of the literature. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 77(2):134–139Google Scholar
- 39.Warren C, Culbert B, Min S et al (2009) Comparative finite element study of posterior stabilization devices. Ninth Annual Symposium on Motion Preservation Technology April 28–May 1, 2009 LondonGoogle Scholar
- 40.Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD et al (2008) Reliability of readings of magnetic resonance imaging features of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(14):1605–1610. Erratum In: Spine 33(22):2482Google Scholar
- 41.Speciale AC, Pietrobon R, Urban CW et al (2002) Observer variability in assessing lumbar spinal stenosis severity on magnetic resonance imaging and its relation to cross-sectional spinal canal area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(10):1082–1086Google Scholar
- 43.Eisenstein SM, Parry CR (1987) The lumbar facet arthrosis syndrome: clinical presentation and articular surface changes. J Bone Joint Surg 69:3–7Google Scholar