Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to quantify the intra- and postoperative complications of an interspinous process device (Coflex) in managing degenerative lumbar diseases and to investigate corresponding therapeutic strategies.

Methods

Between January 2008 and December 2012, we retrospectively analysed a total of 131 patients who underwent decompressive surgery along with the Coflex system for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The related complications were reported, and appropriate measures were taken. Clinical outcomes and radiological data were collected and analysed, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with paired-samples T test.

Results

Related complications occurred in 11 patients. Among them, six cases were found with surgical technique-related complications, including device-related complications in three cases: spinal process fracture (n = 1), Coflex loosening (n = 1), fixed-wing breakage (n = 1), dura mater tear in two cases and superficial wound infection in one case. All of them received corresponding conservative treatment and obtained a good result. The other five cases had non-device-related complications and required additional spinal surgery. The conservative therapy group had apparent improvement of VAS score and ODI, and remained well to final follow-up (P < 0.05). The second operation group also improved postoperatively (each P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The Coflex dynamic interspinous process device shows a low complication and re-operation rate. Standard operation and strict follow-up observation can effectively avoid surgical technique-related complications. The key points to ensure surgical effect and to reduce non-device-related complications are mastering surgical indications and thorough intra-operative decompression.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:970–981

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC et al (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1938–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar M, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Deyo R, Cherkin D et al (1992) Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(4):536

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Glaser J, Stanley M et al (2003) A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(13):1390

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR (2007) Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(3):255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richter A, Schütz C et al (2010) Does an interspinous device (Coflex™) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients. Eur Spine J 19(2):283–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Errico TJ, Kamerlink JR et al (2009) Survivorship of Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. SAS J 3(2):59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Park SC, Yoon SH et al (2009) Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous U (Coflex™). J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46(4):292–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Xu D, Chen Y et al (2009) A short-term follow-up results of lumbar disc herniation by Coflex. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 47(18):1379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Podichetty VK, Spears J et al (2006) Complications associated with minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(3):161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cassinelli EH, Eubanks J et al (2007) Risk factors for the development of perioperative complications in elderly patients undergoing lumbar decompression and arthrodesis for spinal stenosis: an analysis of 166 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(2):230–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burneikiene S, Nelson EL et al (2012) Complications in patients undergoing combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation with deformity correction for degenerative scoliosis and spinal stenosis. Surg Neurol Int 3:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME et al (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord Tech 14(6):533–540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S et al (2006) Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Villarejo F, Carceller F et al (2011) Experience with coflex interspinous implant. Acta Neurochir Suppl 108:171–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yorimitsu E, Chiba K et al (2001) Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(6):652–657

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim JM, Lee SH, Ahn Y et al (2007) Recurrence after successful percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50:82–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Meredith DS, Huang RC, Nguyen J et al (2010) Obesity increases the risk of recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus after lumbar microdiscectomy. Spine J 10:575–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kabir SM, Gupta SR et al (2010) Lumbar interspinous spacers: a systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(25):E1499–E1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilke HJ, Drumm J et al (2008) Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17(8):1049–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuchs PD, Lindsey DP et al (2005) The use of an interspinous implant in conjunction with a graded facetectomy procedure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(11):1266–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Adelt D, Samani J, Kim WK et al (2007) Coflex interspinous stabilization: clinical and radiographic results from an international multicenter retrospective study. Paradigm Spine J 1:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT et al (2010) Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Errico TJ, Kamerlink JR, Quirno M et al (2009) Survivorship of Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. SAS J 3(2):59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim WK, Lee SG, Yoo CJ et al (2005) Our experience of Interspinous U device in degenerative lumbar disease. SAS global symposium on motion preservation technology. SAS, New York, USA

  27. Kong DS, Kim ES, Eoh W (2007) One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability. J Korean Med Sci 22:330–335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tian NF, Zhang XL, Wu YS et al (2012) Fusion after interspinous device placement. Orthopedics 35:e1822–e1825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moojen WA, Arts MP, Bartels RH et al (2011) Effectiveness of interspinous implant surgery in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 20:1596–1606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xueyuanxi Road, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

    Cong Xu, Wen-Fei Ni, Nai-Feng Tian, Xu-Qi Hu, Fan Li & Hua-Zi Xu

Authors
  1. Cong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wen-Fei Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nai-Feng Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu-Qi Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hua-Zi Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hua-Zi Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, C., Ni, WF., Tian, NF. et al. Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex). International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 2199–2204 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2006-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2006-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation