Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients?
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Meyer, BernhardBaranto, Adad
Schils, Frederic
Collignon, Frederic
Zoega, Bjorn
Tan, Leong
LeHuec, Jean-Charles
Issue Date
2018-05
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients? 2018, 82 (5):621 NeurosurgeryAbstract
BACKGROUND: Standalone interspinous process devices (IPDs) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) have shown ambiguous results in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To show that a minimally invasive percutaneous IPD is safe and noninferior to standalone decompressive surgery (SDS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with NIC. METHODS: A multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. One hundred sixty-three patients, enrolled at 19 sites, were randomized 1: 1 to treatment with IPD or SDS and were followed for 24 mo. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in Zurich Claudication Questionnaire physical function, as mean percentage change from baseline, for both the IPD and the SDS groups at 12 mo (primary endpoint) and 24 mo (-32.3 +/- 32.1, -37.5 +/- 22.8; and -37.9 +/- 21.7%, -35.2 +/- 22.8, both P <.001). IPD treatment was not significantly noninferior (margin: 10%) to SDS treatment at 12mo (P=. 172) but was significantly noninferior at 24mo (P =.005). Symptom severity, patient satisfaction, visual analog scale leg pain, and SF-36 improved in both groups over time. IPD showed lower mean surgical time andmean blood loss (24 +/- 11 min and 6 +/- 11 mL) compared to SDS (70 +/- 39 min and 189 +/- 148 mL, both P <.001). Reoperations at index level occurred in 18.2% of the patients in the IPD group and in 9.3% in the SDS group. CONCLUSION: Confirming 3 recent RCTs, we could show that IPD as well as open decompression achieve similar results in relieving symptoms of NIC in highly selected patients. However, despite some advantages in secondary outcomes, a higher reoperation rate for IPD is confirmed.Description
To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked FilesAdditional Links
https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article/82/5/621/3893623Rights
Archived with thanks to Neurosurgeryae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1093/neuros/nyx326
Scopus Count
Collections