Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius™ PerCLID™) on spinal canal area

Diagnostic value of a new axial loading MRI device in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVES

This study was carried out to investigate a new device for axial loading MRI (alMRI) in the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

A total of 87 patients with suspected LSS sequentially underwent conventional MRI and alMRI using a new device with pneumatic shoulder-hip compression mode. Four quantitative parameters of dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), sagittal vertebral canal diameter (SVCD), disc height (DH), and ligamentum flavum thickness (LFT) at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 in both examinations were measured and compared. Eight qualitative indicators were compared as valuable diagnostic information. Image quality, examinee comfort, test-retest repeatability, and observer reliability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Using the new device, all 87 patients successfully completed alMRI with no statistically significant differences in image quality and examinee comfort from conventional MRI. Statistically significant changes were observed in DSCA, SVCD, DH, and LFT after loading (p < 0.01). SVCD, DH, LFT, and DSCA changes were all positively correlated (r = 0.80, 0.72, 0.37, p < 0.01). Eight qualitative indicators increased from 501 to 669 after axial loading, for a total increase of 168 (33.5%). Nineteen patients (21.8%, 19/87) developed absolute stenosis after axial loading and 10 of them (11.5%, 10/87) also had a significant reduction in DSCA (> 15 mm²). The test-retest repeatability and observer reliability were good to excellent.

CONCLUSION

The new device is stable for performing alMRI and can exacerbate the severity of spinal stenosis, providing more valuable information for diagnosing LSS and reducing missed diagnoses.

KEY POINTS

• The new axial loading MRI (alMRI) device could detect a higher frequency of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). • The new device with pneumatic shoulder-hip compression mode was used to investigate its applicability in alMRI and diagnostic value for LSS. • The new device is stable for performing alMRI and can provide more valuable information for diagnosing LSS.

The use of minimally invasive interspinous process devices for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a narrative literature review

Minimally invasive interspinous process devices (IPD), including interspinous distraction devices (IDD) and interspinous stabilizers (ISS), are increasingly utilized for treating symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). There is ongoing debate around their efficacy and safety over traditional decompression techniques with and without interbody fusion (IF). This study presents a comprehensive review of IPD and investigates if: (I) minimally invasive IDD can effectively substitute direct neural decompression and (II) ISS are appropriate substitutes for fusion after decompression. Articles published up to 22^nd January 2020 were obtained from PubMed search. Relevant articles published in the English language were selected and critically reviewed. Observational studies across different IPD brands consistently show significant improvements in clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction at short-term follow-up. Compared to non-operative treatment, mini-open IDD was had significantly greater quality of life and clinical outcome improvements at 2-year follow-up. Compared to open decompression, mini-open IDD had similar clinical outcomes, but associated with higher complications, reoperation risks and costs. Compared to open decompression with concurrent IF, ISS had comparable clinical outcomes with reduced operative time, blood loss, length of stay and adjacent segment mobility. Mini-open IDD had better outcomes over non-operative treatment in mild-moderate LCS at 2-year follow-up, but had similar outcomes with higher risk of re-operations than open decompression. ISS with open decompression may be a suitable alternative to decompression and IF for stable grade 1 spondylolisthesis and central stenosis. To further characterize this procedure, future studies should focus on examining enhanced new generation IPD devices, longer-term follow-up and careful patient selection.

Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the clinical efficacy, complications, and reoperation rates among three major treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS): decompression, fusion, and interspinous process device (IPD), using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

Databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were used for the literature search. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) with three treatment methods were reviewed and included in the study. R software (version 3.6.0), Stata (version 14.0), and Review Manager (version 5.3) were used to perform data analysis.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs involving 1254 patients were enrolled in the present study and each study met an acceptable quality according to our quality assessment described later. In direct comparison, IPD exhibited a higher incidence of reoperation than fusion (OR ​= ​2.93, CI: 1.07–8.02). In indirect comparison, the rank of VAS leg (from best to worst) was as follows: IPD (64%) ​> ​decompression (25%) ​> ​fusion (11%), and the rank of ODI (from best to worst) was: IPD (84%) ​> ​fusion (13%) ​> ​decompression (4%). IPD had the lowest incidence of complications; the rank of complications (from best to worst) was: IPD (60%) ​> ​decompression (27%) ​> ​fusion (14%). However, for the rank of reoperation, fusion showed the best results (from best to worst): fusion (79%) ​> ​decompression (20%) ​> ​IPD (1%). Consistency tests at global and local level showed satisfactory results and heterogeneity tests using loop text indicated a favorable stability.

Conclusion

The present study preliminarily indicates that non-fusion methods including decompression and IPD are optimal choices for treating LSS, which achieves favorable clinical outcomes. IPD exhibits a low incidence of complications, but its high rate of reoperation should be treated with caution.

The translational potential of this article

For the treatment of LSS, several procedures including decompression, fusion, and IPD have been reported. However, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. To date, the golden standard treatment for LSS is still controversial. In this network meta-analysis, our results demonstrate that both decompression and IPD obtain satisfactory clinical effects for LSS. IPD is accompanied with a low incidence of complications, however, its high rate of reoperation should be acknowledged with discretion.