Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article

Evaluating surgical interventions for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of decompression alone, fusion, and dynamic stabilization

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).

RESULT

21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.

CONCLUSION

DA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.

Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical usefulness and radiologic changes around the Coflex device following decompression with Coflex insertion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS), with an average follow-up of 14 years. Methods: This retrospective study included 147 patients who underwent decompression and Coflex insertion for single-level DLSS at a single institution between January 2007 and December 2010. Patients with spinal stenosis unresponsive to 3 months of conservative treatment were treated surgically. The mean follow-up duration was 173.9 ± 23.7 (range, 119-214) months. Results: The mean visual analog scale score decreased from 8.22 ± 1.06 preoperatively to 2.08 ± 1.58 postoperatively. Intervertebral disc height and foramen height at the Coflex insertion site decreased by 5.3% and 2.0%, respectively, after surgery. The reoperation rate at the operated site was 25% (n = 37). A significantly higher reoperation rate was observed in patients with translational instability (odds ratio [OR], 7.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.453-24.658; p < 0.01) and angular instability (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.492-5.133; p < 0.001). Eight patients underwent reoperation due to rapid progression of instability within 2 years of Coflex insertion; thereafter, a similar cumulative incidence rate was consistently observed. The adjacent-segment reoperation rate was 10.8% (n = 16). Conclusions: The Coflex interspinous device helps preserve disc and foramen height but is associated with a high reoperation rate, particularly in patients with spinal instability. Therefore, careful patient selection is crucial when considering its use.

Management for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis and systematic review basing on randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites until 01 November 2023, to screen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the treatment of DLS. The seven most common DLS interventions [nonsurgical (NS), decompression only (DO), decompression plus fusion without internal fixation (DF), decompression plus fusion with internal fixation (DFI), endoscopic decompression plus fusion (EDF), endoscopic decompression (ED), and circumferential fusion (360F)] were compared. The primary (pain and disability) and secondary (complications, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction) outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data involving 3273 patients in 16 RCTs comparing the efficacy of different interventions for DLS were reported. In terms of improving patient pain and dysfunction, there was a significant difference between surgical and NS. EDF showed the greatest improvement in short-term and long-term dysfunction (probability, 7.1 and 21.0%). Moreover, EDF had a higher complication rate (probability 70.8%), lower reoperation rate (probability, 20.2%), and caused greater blood loss (probability, 82.5%) than other surgical interventions. Endoscopic surgery had the shortest hospitalization time (EDF: probability, 42.6%; ED: probability, 3.9%). DF and DFI had the highest satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high complication rate of EDF, its advantages include improvement in pain, lower reoperation rate, and shorter hospitalization duration. Therefore, EDF may be a good option for patients with DLS as a less invasive surgical approach.

Decompression Alone Versus Interspinous/Interlaminar Device Placement for Degenerative Lumbar Pathologies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Interspinous devices (ISDs) and interlaminar devices (ILDs) are marketed as alternatives to conventional surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions; comparisons with decompression alone are limited. The present study reviews the extant literature comparing the cost and effectiveness of ISDs/ILDs with decompression alone.

METHODS

Articles comparing decompression alone with ISD/ILD were identified; outcomes of interest included general and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, perioperative complications, and total treatment costs. Outcomes were analyzed at <6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and last follow-up. Analyses were performed using random effects modeling.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the final analysis. ILD/ISD showed greater leg pain improvement at 3 months (mean difference, -1.43; 95% confidence interval, [-1.78, -1.07]; P < 0.001), 6 months (-0.89; [-1.55, -0.24]; P = 0.008), and 12 months (-0.97; [-1.25, -0.68]; P < 0.001), but not 2 years (P = 0.22) or last follow-up (P = 0.09). Back pain improvement was better after ISD/ILD only at 1 year (-0.87; [-1.62, -0.13]; P = 0.02). Short-Form 36 physical component scores or Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) symptom severity scores did not differ between the groups. ZCQ physical function scores improved more after decompression alone at 6 months (0.35; [0.07, 0.63]; P = 0.01) and 12 months (0.23; [0.00, 0.46]; P = 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQoL 5 dimensions scores favored ILD/ISD at all time points except 6 months (P = 0.07). Reoperations (odds ratio, 1.75; [1.23, 2.48]; P = 0.002) and total care costs (standardized mean difference, 1.19; [0.62, 1.77]; P < 0.001) were higher in the ILD/ISD group; complications did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported outcomes are similar after decompression alone and ILD/ISD; the observed differences do not reach accepted minimum clinically important difference thresholds. ISD/ILDs have higher associated costs and reoperation rates, suggesting current evidence does not support ILD/ISDs as a cost-effective alternative to decompression alone.

Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify how pre-surgical conservative care is characterized and reported in randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion, including duration and type of treatment.

METHODS

The study design is a scoping review. Data sources include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials published in English between January 1, 2005, and February 15, 2022, assessing lumbar fusion as the intervention were included in this review.

RESULTS

Of 166 studies, 62.0% reported a failure in conservative care prior to lumbar fusion, but only 15.1% detailed the type of specific conservative care received. None of the trials provided sufficient details to understand the nature of the pre-surgical conservative treatment, such as frequency, recency/timing, or dosage of conservative interventions.

CONCLUSION

Although roughly two-thirds of trials reported that patients failed conservative care prior to receiving a lumbar fusion, few studies named the conservative intervention provided and no studies provided any details regarding dosing or recency of care. This lack of information creates ambiguity in the surgical decision-making process, setting the assumption that all patients received adequate conservative care prior to surgery. Details about pre-surgical conservative care should be disclosed to allow for appropriate clinical application, decision-making, and interpretation of treatment effects.

Complications and radiographic changes after implantation of interspinous process devices: average eight-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate complications, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results following Coflex implantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 66 patients who had decompressive surgery combined with Coflex implantation to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. All imaging data were collected and examined for imaging changes. Clinical outcomes, included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg visual analog scale (VAS) scores, were evaluated before surgery, six months after surgery and at the last follow-up. The number of complications occurring after five years of follow-up was counted. All reoperation cases were meticulously recorded.

RESULTS

66 patients were followed up for 5-14 years. The VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved compared with baseline. Heterotopic Ossification (HO) was detectable in 59 (89.4%). 26 (39.4%) patients had osteolysis at the contact site of Coflex with the spinous process. Coflex loosening was detected in 39 (60%) patients. Spinous process anastomosis was found in 34 (51.5%) patients. There was a statistically significant difference in the VAS score of back pain between patients with and without spinous process anastomosis. Nine cases of lumbar spinal restenosis were observed, and prosthesis fracture was observed in one case.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified various imaging changes after Coflex implantation, and majority of them did not affect clinical outcomes. The majority of patients had HO, but osteolysis and Coflex loosening were relatively rare. The VAS score for back pain of these patients was higher if they have spinous process anastomosis. After five-year follow-up, we found lumbar spinal restenosis and prosthesis fracture cases.

Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Low-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Stabilization with Rigid Percutaneous Pedicle Screws

The armamentarium of surgical treatment options for lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) includes decompression alone, stabilization with interlaminar devices, or instrumented fusion, through open or minimally invasive approaches. Despite its safe profuse use in distinctive lumbar spine disorders, using percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) alone to stabilize LS has never been described before. We performed a retrospective study of prospectively collected data, enrolling 24 patients with LS and scrutinizing clinical and radiological outcomes. A statistically significant decrease in visual analog scale (VAS) scores (p < 0.001) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (p < 0.001) was observed, as was a reduction in the intake of acetaminophen after surgery (p = 0.022). In the long-term, PPS effectively reduced the index-level range of motion (p < 0.001), reduced preoperative slippage (p = 0.03), and maintained foraminal height, thus accounting for the positive clinical outcomes. It induced a significant segmental kyphotic effect (p < 0.001) that was compensated for by a favorable increase in the pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) index (0.028).

Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for patients with single‐segment lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Bayesian network meta‐analysis (NMA) was conducted in this study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported 2 years' results after surgery were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2021. Eligible RCTs that contained at least two of the following surgical procedures, bilateral decompression via the unilateral approach (BDUL), decompression with conventional laminectomy (CL), decompression with fusion (DF), endoscopic decompression (ED), interspinous process devices only (IPDs), decompression with interlaminar stabilization (DILS), decompression with lumbar spinal process‐splitting laminectomy (LSPSL), and minimally invasive tubular decompression (MTD), would be included after screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Twenty eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 2201 patients enrolled. The NMA showed that the following surgical procedures ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking) when compared with CL and DF: DILS for ODI (SUCRA 87.8%); LSPSL for back pain (95%); and MTD for leg pain (95.6%). MTD ranked among the top three surgical procedures for most outcomes. The quality of the synthesized evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. DILS, LSPSL, MTD, IPDs, and ED are the most effective procedures for patients with single‐segment LSS. Because of combining efficacy and safety, MTD may be the most promising routine surgical option for treating single‐segment LSS.

Less Invasive Decompressive Laminectomy and One-Level Lumbar Fusion in the Setting of Interspinous Fixation: A Retrospective Analysis of 15 Patients

Lumbar decompressive laminectomy for spinal stenosis can be performed using a less-invasive, unilateral approach with subperiosteal dissection and decompression by undermining the lamina from the ipsilateral to the contralateral side. A unilateral approach to bilateral decompression can be supplemented with interspinous instrumentation and facet fusion, a combined procedure that has not been studied before. The less-invasive technique appears to be as effective for lumbar stenosis as the traditional lumbar laminectomy. It also causes less blood loss and reduced operating time, and so may benefit patients who are elderly, medically frail, or with multiple comorbidities. 

Fifteen patients (eight females, seven males) underwent outpatient surgery by the author (HA) using this technique. These patients complained of progressive lower back pain associated with radicular pain exacerbated by prolonged standing or walking with improvement in flexed position of the lumbar spine with decreased walking distance ability. A one-level less-invasive lumbar laminectomy and foraminotomy with facet fusion and interspinous fixation were performed for spinal stenosis in conjunction with a Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. These patients all had a single-level facet fusion with bone graft material and local autograft. The approximate surgical time for each patient was between 50 and 80 minutes. The visual analog scale for pain (VAS) score decreased significantly after surgery; patients presented with preoperative VAS scores of 5-10/10 (mean 8.33/10). Postoperative VAS scores were 0-6/10 (mean 2/10), yielding a mean VAS improvement of 76% following surgery. Future analysis should be performed for evaluation of sustained VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF 36), and the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ).

Application of the IntraSPINE® interlaminar device in patients with osteoporosis and spinal stenosis: two case reports

Osteoporosis is a rising concern in the aging population and should be considered before performing spinal surgery for older patients. Nonfusion surgery using interlaminar or interspinous devices is gradually gaining acceptance because adjacent segment disease seldom occurs postoperatively; however, other complications may occur. This report discusses the surgical outcomes of two women with osteoporosis treated by laminectomy and interlaminar device (IntraSPINE®) placement. Both patients had experienced low back pain for several years and had developed vertebral compression fractures. Several conservative treatments, including rehabilitation and local injections, were ineffective. Their bone mineral density levels were −3.0 and −2.8, indicating severe osteoporosis according to the definition established by the World Health Organization. They chose to undergo nonfusion surgery with IntraSPINE® interlaminar device placement. Their pain significantly decreased postoperatively, and their visual analog scale scores decreased from 8 to 2 and 3. Their extremity numbness and back pain resolved within 3 months. Both patients were satisfied with the surgical outcomes. No complications had occurred by 1 year postoperatively. These cases indicate that osteoporosis may not be an absolute contraindication for nonfusion spinal surgery. This report suggests a possible alternative surgical treatment for patients with osteoporosis that is refractory to conservative treatments.

Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: development of appropriate use criteria

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Outcomes of treatment in care of patients with spinal disorders are directly related to patient selection and treatment indications. However, for many disorders, there is absence of consensus for precise indications. With the increasing emphasis on quality and value in spine care, it is essential that treatment recommendations and decisions are optimized.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the North American Spine Society Appropriate Use Criteria was to determine the appropriate (ie reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios.

STUDY DESIGN

A Modified Delphi process was used.

METHODS

The methodology was based on the Appropriate Use Criteria development process established by the Research AND Development Corporation. The topic of degenerative spondylolisthesis was selected by the committee, key modifiers determined, and consensus reached on standard definitions. A literature search and evidence analysis were completed by one work group simultaneously as scenarios were written, reviewed, and finalized by another work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a nine-point scale on two separate occasions, once without discussion and then a second time following discussion based on the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario was then used to determine if indications were rarely appropriate (1 - 3), uncertain (4-6), or appropriate (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory.

RESULTS

There were 131 discrete scenarios. These addressed questions on bone grafting, imaging, mechanical instability, radiculopathy with or without neurological deficits, obesity, and yellow flags consisting of psychosocial and medical comorbidities. For most of these, appropriateness was established for physical therapy, injections, and various forms of surgical intervention. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis should be determined by an upright x-ray. Scenarios pertaining to bone grafting suggested that patients should quit smoking prior to surgery, and that use of BMP should be reserved for patients who had risk factors for non-union. Across all clinical scenarios, physical therapy (PT) had an adjusted mean of 7.66, epidural steroid injections 5.76, and surgery 4.52. Physical therapy was appropriate in most scenarios, and most appropriate in patients with back pain and no neurological deficits. Epidural steroid injections were most appropriate in patients with radiculopathy. Surgery was generally more appropriate for patients with neurological deficits, higher disability scores, and dynamic spondylolisthesis. Mechanical back pain and presence of yellow flags tended to be less appropriate, and obesity in general had relatively little influence on decision making. Decompression alone was more strongly considered in the presence of static versus dynamic spondylolisthesis. On average, posterior fusion with or without interbody fusion was similarly appropriate, and generally more appropriate than stand-alone interbody fusion which was in turn more appropriate than interspinous spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria were generated based on the Research AND Development methodology. While there were consistent and significant differences between surgeons and non-surgeons, these differences were generally very small. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. The document in its entirety will be found on the North American Spine Society website (https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Criteria).

A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion

The current study aimed to compare the outcomes of decompression and interlaminar stabilisation with those of decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) at a minimum 8-year follow-up. The current study also aimed to analyse the risk factors of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). A total of 82 consecutive patients with LDD who underwent surgery between June 2007 and February 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 39 underwent decompression and Coflex interspinous stabilisation (Coflex group) and 43 underwent decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (PLIF group). All patients had a minimum of 8-years of follow-up data. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and the risk factors of developing radiographic ASD were also evaluated. The Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale leg and back pain scores of both groups significantly improved compared with the baseline (all P<0.05), and no difference were indicated between the two groups at each follow-up time point (P>0.05). The Coflex group exhibited preserved mobility (P<0.001), which was associated with a decreased amount of blood loss (P<0.001), shorter duration of surgery (P=0.001), shorter duration of hospital stay and a lower incidence of ASD (12.8 vs. 32.56%; P=0.040) compared with the fusion group. The current study indicated that coflex and fusion technologies are safe and effective for the treatment of LDD, based on long-term follow-up data. However, Coflex interspinous stabilisation was revealed to reduce ASD incidence. Under strict indications, Coflex interspinous stabilisation is an effective and safe treatment method.

Management for lumbar spinal stenosis: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventional paired meta-analyses have shown inconsistent results regarding the safety and efficacy of different interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) and systematic review based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacies of different interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites from inception to October 10, 2019, for randomized controlled trials comparing the nine most commonly used interventions for LSS. The main outcomes were disability and pain intensity. The PROSPERO number was CRD42020154247.

RESULTS

First, laminotomy was better in improving patients' short- and long-term dysfunction (probability 49% and 25%, respectively). Second, decompression, decompression plus fusion, endoscopic decompression, interspinous process spacer device implantation, laminectomy, laminotomy and minimally invasive decompression were significantly more efficacious in relieving pain than non-surgical interventions (mean difference in the short-term -21.82, -22.00, -16.68, -17.47, -17.75, -17.61 and -18.86; in the long-term -37.14, -34.04, -34.07, -39.79, -36.14, -32.75 and -39.14, respectively). Third, endoscopic decompression had a lower complication rate (probability 51%). In addition, laminotomy had a lower reoperation rate (probability 45%). Fourth, decompression plus fusion resulted in more blood loss than any other surgical intervention (probability 96%). Finally, endoscopic decompression had the shortest hospitalization time (probability 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences among the different interventions in improving patient function. Surgical interventions were associated with better pain relief but a higher incidence of complications. Decompression plus fusion is not necessary for patients. In addition, endoscopic decompression as a novel and less invasive surgical approach may be a good choice for LSS patients.

Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of Coflex dynamic stabilization device in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

The clinical and imaging data of 73 patients undergoing Coflex dynamic stabilization surgery from July 2008 to June 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients had a minimum of 8 years of follow-up. Clinical data were used to assess the clinical efficacy, and radiographic parameters were measured for evaluation of ASD.

RESULTS

56 Patients were followed up for 107.6 ± 13.3 months. The visual analogue scale of pain (VAS), Owestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores (JOA) improved significantly after surgery. At 6 months after surgery and the last follow-up, lumbar range of motion (ROM) was significantly lower than that before surgery (P < 0.001). ROM was slightly increased at the last follow-up compared with that 6 months after operation (P > 0.05). ROM of adjacent segments increased at 6 months and at the last follow-up compared with that before surgery (P > 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, intervertebral space height (ISH) and intervertebral foramen height (IFH) of implanted segment was significantly higher than that before surgery (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, there was a decrease in ISH and IFH (P > 0.05). During the follow-up period, a total of 11 patients (19.6%) experienced complications and 6 patients (10.7%) underwent secondary surgery.

CONCLUSION

Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization is effective in the long-term treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, the ISH and IFH of implanted segment could be increased in a short period of time.

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.

New combination of IntraSPINE device and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for rare skipped-level lumbar disc herniation: a case report and literature review

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is an open surgical technique that has been widely used for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. However, traditional lumbar spinal fusion, especially long-segment fusion surgery, is associated with several complications. The IntraSPINE (Cousin Biotech, Wervicq-Sud, France) is a new device for non-fusion lumbar spine surgery that is used as an alternative for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Although the designer of the IntraSPINE proposed indications for its use, including combination of the device with lumbar spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease, use of the IntraSPINE has not been reported in the clinical literature. In the present case, we boldly combined the IntraSPINE device and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of skipped-level lumbar disc herniation to explore the indications of the IntraSPINE and report its clinical outcomes.

Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Interlaminar stabilization and interspinous stabilization are two newer minimally invasive methods for lumbar spine stabilization, used frequently in conjunction with lumbar decompression to treat lumbar stenosis. The two methods share certain similarities, therefore, frequently being categorized together. However, the two methods offer distinct biomechanical properties, which affect their respective effectiveness and surgical success.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the biomechanical characteristics of interlaminar stabilization after lumbar decompression (ILS) and interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression (ISS). For comparison, lumbar decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DF) were also included in the biomechanical analysis.

METHODS

Four finite element models were constructed, i.e., DA, DF, ISS, and ILS. To minimize device influence and focus on the biomechanical properties of different methods, Coflex device as a model system was placed at different position for the comparison of ISS and ILS. The range of motion (ROM) and disc stress peak at the surgical and adjacent levels were compared among the four surgical constructs. The stress peak of the spinous process, whole device, and device wing was compared between ISS and ILS.

RESULTS

Compared with DA, the ROM and disc stress at the surgical level in ILS or ISS were much lower in extension. The ROM and disc stress at the surgical level in ILS were 1.27° and 0.36 MPa, respectively, and in ISS 1.51°and 0.55 MPa, respectively in extension. This is compared with 4.71° and 1.44 MPa, respectively in DA. ILS (2.06-4.85° and 0.37-0.98 MPa, respectively) or ISS (2.07-4.78° and 0.37-0.98 MPa, respectively) also induced much lower ROM and disc stress at the adjacent levels compared with DF (2.50-7.20° and 0.37-1.20 MPa, respectively). ILS further reduced the ROM and disc stress at the surgical level by 8% and 25%, respectively, compared to ISS. The stress peak of the spinous process in ILS was significantly lower than that in ISS (13.93-101 MPa vs. 31.08-172.5 MPa). In rotation, ILS yielded a much lower stress peak in the instrumentation wing than ISS (128.7 MPa vs. 222.1 MPa).

CONCLUSION

ILS and ISS partly address the issues of segmental instability in DA and hypermobility and overload at the adjacent levels in DF. ILS achieves greater segmental stability and results in a lower disc stress, compared to ISS. In addition, ILS reduces the risk of spinous process fracture and device failure.

Topping-off surgery vs posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a comparative study of clinical efficacy and adjacent segment degeneration

Background

Studies have shown that adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a common complication after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), even a second surgery is required for some patients. It remains unclear whether the non-fusion surgery can relieve ASD. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of Topping-off surgery (fusion combined with Coflex) and PLIF for degenerative lumbar disease (DLD) and the efficacy on preventing ASD.

Method

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 99 patients with DLD from January 2011 to December 2014, who were performed by Topping-off surgery (L4–5 PLIF + L3–4 Coflex, n = 45) or PLIF (L3–5 PLIF, n = 54). All patients included in the analysis had a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Clinical data were used to assess the clinical efficacy, and radiographic parameters were measured for evaluation of the incidence of ASD.

Results

The mean ages of Topping-off group and PLIF group were 53.5 and 65.7 years old, respectively (P < 0.05). The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Intervertebral mobility (L2-L3) of the Topping-off group was not changed significantly at 3 years after surgery than before (P > 0.05), while that of PLIF group was increased considerably (P < 0.05). As to intergroup comparison, intervertebral mobility (L2-L3) of Topping-off group was superior to those of the PLIF group (P < 0.05). Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in the general adjacent segment mobility (GASM) at L2–4 of the Topping-off group and intervertebral mobility (L2–L3) of PLIF group at 3 years after surgery (P > 0.05). Lumbar MRI at three post-operative years indicated that the modified Pfirrman grading of disc (L2–L3) in the Topping-off group was much better than that of the PLIF group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study showed that Topping-off surgery had the benefits of less invasiveness, less bleeding, and comparable clinical efficacy as PLIF for DLD. The segment with Coflex insertion undertook part of the mobility and stress in the proximal lumbar spine, which is conducive to alleviating ASD.

Future Studies and Directions for the Optimization of Outcomes for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Randomized prospective studies show clear benefits for operative versus nonoperative management of symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis, but there is no universally accepted surgical treatment. This article presents options for surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis, reviews the clinical trials delineating the role and type of surgical intervention, and explores the directions of future investigations. The next decade will add further clarity to the surgical management of spondylolisthesis, not by randomized prospective trials, but by surgical registries. The power of "big data" offered by registries will likely become the vehicle best suited to amass data on current and novel therapies.

Feasibility of Full Percutaneous Segmental Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine With a Combination of an Expandable Interbody Cage and an Interspinous Spacer: Preliminary Results

Introduction

We evaluated the feasibility of a full percutaneous approach with an expandable interbody cage and an interspinous spacer for a segmental stabilization of the anterior and posterior columns of the lumbar spine, respectively, with local anesthesia.

Methods

Patients were prospectively included between 2012 and 2018 in this single-center, feasibility case series. An expandable interbody cage was inserted with endoscopy-based, facet-sparing percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (pTLIF). An interspinous spacer was percutaneously placed through the same skin incision. Pre- and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were obtained and evaluated with the Student t test. Postoperative outcome was classified according to modified Macnab criteria.

Results

A total of 16 patients were included, presenting mean preoperative scores for VAS back of 6.9 ± 2.5, VAS leg 7.9 ± 1.2, and ODI 30.1 ± 4.5. Postoperative mean scores for VAS back of 1.9 ± 2.1, VAS leg 2.1 ± 3.4, and ODI 14.8 ± 13.0 significantly (P < .001) decreased with a mean follow-up of 18.1 ± 16.6 months (range 1-65.2). Postoperative outcome was excellent and good for 13 (81%) cases, fair for 2 (13%), and poor for 1 (6%) case with a preoperative spondylolisthesis, which required revision surgery due to persisting instability. Postoperative complications included 3 cases with transitory, ipsilateral dysesthesia and 2 cases with radiologic cage subsidence but no clinical symptoms. Median postoperative time until hospital discharge was 16 hours.

Conclusion

Our preliminary results for this full percutaneous technique show a similar outcome compared to conventional surgery with a fast patient recovery and early postoperative hospital discharge, opening the way to instrumented, outpatient surgery.

Comparison of Decompression Alone Versus Decompression with Fusion for Stenotic Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The first line of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (with or without lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis) involves conservative options such as anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics. Approximately, 10%-15% of patients require surgery. Surgical treatment aims to decompress the spinal canal and dural sac from degenerative bony and ligamentous overgrowth. Different studies have given conflicting results. The aim of our study is to clear the confusion by comparing two surgical techniques. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Embase, Scopus, Pubmed, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library databases. A quality and risk of bias assessment was also done. The analysis was done using Revman software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark). A total of 76 studies were extracted from the literature search and 29 studies with relevant information were shortlisted. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis after a quality assessment and eligibility. Fusion with decompression surgery was found to be a better technique when compared to decompression alone for spinal stenosis in terms of the Oswestry Disability index and the visual analog pain scale for back and leg pain. On the basis of the meta-analysis of the recent medical literature, the authors concluded that decompression with fusion is a 3.5-times better surgical technique than decompression alone for spinal stenosis.

The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

To alleviate the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, widely accepted methods of surgical treatment include decompression alone and decompression with fusion. As an alternative to these methods, interlaminar stabilization (ILS) devices with decompression were introduced. There is a large amount of research dedicated to examining the efficacy of ILS devices in single-level procedures, but fewer studies focus on their efficacy in 2-level procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare decompression with instrumented posterolateral fusion to decompression with interlaminar stabilization in patients who require surgical treatment at 2 levels for lumbar spinal stenosis at 5 years postoperation.

METHODS

Of the 322 patients enrolled in the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, 116 required surgical treatment at 2 levels. The ILS group consisted of 77 patients, and the fusion group consisted of 39 patients. Efficacy was measured using composite clinical success (CCS). Patients achieve CCS if they achieve all 4 of the following outcomes: ≥15-point improvement from baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); no reoperation or epidural injections; no persistent, new, or increasing neurological deficits; and no major device-related complications.

RESULTS

There was a 91% rate of follow-up within the participant population in the 5-year data. There was a difference trending toward significance between groups for the absence of reoperation or epidural injection, with 68.8% of ILS patients and only 51.3% of fusion patients meeting this criteria (P = .065); 13.0% of ILS patients and 25.7% of fusion patients required secondary surgery. The percentage of patients achieving overall CCS was much greater in the ILS group than the fusion group, with 55.1% (38/69) of ILS patients and only 36.4% (12/33) of fusion patients achieving CCS at month 60 (P = .077). With regard to the ODI, the visual analog scale back and worse leg pain, the Short Form-12, and the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, both groups had significantly better results at every follow-up time point when compared to their respective baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-level ILS patient group performed as well as, if not better than, the 2-level fusion group across almost all outcome measures, demonstrating both clinical outcome success and favorably low reoperation rates in patients who received ILS surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This is the first 5-year analysis of the 2-level ILS experience, which supplements previous studies that describe the advantages of ILS by extending such advantages to 2-level cases.

Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Decompression plus spinal fusion is one of the most common surgeries for the treatment of degenerative spine disease in older adults. However, complications caused by fusion surgery have been reported in some studies. Recently published studies have reported that coflex is a safe and viable option in the selection of instrumentation for spinal stabilisation. Our meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether decompression and coflex results in better performance for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients when compared with decompression and fusion surgery.

METHOD

Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched. Ten studies that compared coflex with fusion surgery were included in our meta-analysis. The PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook were applied to assess the quality of the results published in all included studies to ensure that the results of our meta-analysis were reliable and veritable.

RESULTS

The results of our meta-analysis showed that decompression and coflex was more effective than the control procedure in terms of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood loss. However, no significant difference was found in visual analogue scale (VAS) and major device-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional decompression plus fusion surgery, coflex was not inferior in terms of functional clinical outcomes, including ODI and VAS pain score. Moreover, coflex showed less blood loss, shorter LOS and similar device-related complications compared to decompression plus fusion surgery. Therefore, the coflex interlaminar stabilisation device was found to be safe and effective compared to decompression plus fusion for the treatment of LSS.

Evaluation of Coflex interspinous stabilization following decompression compared with decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A minimum 5-year follow-up study

Few studies have compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between Coflex interspinous stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease. We compared the at least 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of Coflex stabilization and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. Eighty-seven consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disease were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-two patients underwent decompression and Coflex interspinous stabilization (Coflex group), 45 patients underwent decompression and PLIF (PLIF group). Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated. Coflex subjects experienced less blood loss, shorter hospital stays and shorter operative time than PLIF (all p<0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale back and leg pain at each follow-up time point. The Coflex group had significantly better clinical outcomes during early follow-up. At final follow-up, the superior and inferior adjacent segments motion had no significant change in the Coflex group, while the superior adjacent segment motion increased significantly in the PLIF group. At final follow-up, the operative level motion was significantly decreased in both groups, but was greater in the Coflex group. The reoperation rate for adjacent segment disease was higher in the PLIF group, but this did not achieve statistical significance (11.1% vs. 4.8%, p=0.277). Both groups provided sustainable improved clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease through at least 5-year follow-up. The Coflex group had significantly better early efficacy than the PLIF group. Coflex interspinous implantation after decompression is safe and effective for lumbar degenerative disease.

Spinal devices in the United States-investigational device exemption trials and premarket approval of class III devices

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, there has been increased public awareness of regulatory actions by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on spinal devices. There has also been increased scrutiny of the pivotal clinical trials of these devices.

PURPOSE

To investigate the premarket approval (PMA) of class III spinal devices in the United States since the turn of the century. To explore clinically relevant issues that affect the interpretation of investigational device exemption trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, data on PMA applications for spinal devices were obtained from two sources. First, meetings of FDA's Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel were identified from the Federal Register. Second, the FDA database of approved PMA applications was queried. For each device, two authors reviewed all archival data. There was no external source of funding.

RESULTS

Twenty-one devices met the study criteria. There were 76.2% that received approval and 47.6% that went to panel. Arthroplasty devices were most common (52.4%), least likely to go to panel (3 of 11), and most likely to be approved after panel (3 of 3). Biologic devices were most likely to go to panel (3 of 3) and least likely to be approved after panel (1 of 3). Before and after 2009, there was no decrease in the number of spinal devices approved. All 21 devices were studied in a pivotal clinical trial. All trials except one were randomized controlled trials, and all trials except one were two-arm noninferiority designs.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been no decrease in the number of new FDA-approved class III spinal devices since the turn of the century. The majority of devices have been for cervical arthroplasty. By contrast, biologic devices were most likely to go to panel and least likely to be approved after panel. The pivotal trials for nearly all devices were randomized, two-arm, noninferiority trials.

Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Hospital charges for lumbar spinal stenosis have increased significantly worldwide in recent times, with great variation in the costs and rates of different surgical procedures. There have also been significant increases in the rate of complex fusion and the use of spinal spacer implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur costs up to three times higher. Moreover, the superiority of these new surgical procedures over traditional decompression surgery is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of surgery in the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and the comparative effectiveness between commonly performed surgical techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative surgical data and reoperation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors performed electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and three trials registries from their inception to 16 June 2016. Authors also conducted citation tracking on the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review included only randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of surgery compared with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery, or with another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment, using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group criteria. Reviewers also extracted demographics, surgery details, and types of outcomes to describe the characteristics of included studies. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function or disability status, quality of life, and recovery. The secondary outcomes included measurements related to surgery, such as perioperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and costs. We grouped trials according to the types of surgical interventions being compared and categorised follow-up times as short-term when less than 12 months and long-term when 12 months or more. Pain and disability scores were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 24 randomised controlled trials (reported in 39 published research articles or abstracts) in this review. The trials included 2352 participants with lumbar spinal stenosis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication. None of the included trials compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Therefore, all included studies compared two or more surgical techniques. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias for the blinding of care provider domain, and most of the trials failed to adequately conceal the randomisation process, blind the participants or use intention-to-treat analysis. Five trials compared the effects of fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Our results showed no significant differences in pain relief at long-term (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to 6.74). Similarly, we found no between-group differences in disability reduction in the long-term (MD 3.26, 95% CI -6.12 to 12.63). Participants who received decompression alone had significantly less perioperative blood loss (MD -0.52 L, 95% CI -0.70 L to -0.34 L) and required shorter operations (MD -107.94 minutes, 95% CI -161.65 minutes to -54.23 minutes) compared with those treated with decompression plus fusion, though we found no difference in the number of reoperations (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.92). Another three trials investigated the effects of interspinous process spacer devices compared with conventional bony decompression. These spacer devices resulted in similar reductions in pain (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.08 to 6.99) and disability (MD 1.25, 95% CI -4.48 to 6.98). The spacer devices required longer operation time (MD 39.11 minutes, 95% CI 19.43 minutes to 58.78 minutes) and were associated with higher risk of reoperation (RR 3.95, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.37), but we found no difference in perioperative blood loss (MD 144.00 mL, 95% CI -209.74 mL to 497.74 mL). Two trials compared interspinous spacer devices with decompression plus fusion. Although we found no difference in pain relief (MD 5.35, 95% CI -1.18 to 11.88), the spacer devices revealed a small but significant effect in disability reduction (MD 5.72, 95% CI 1.28 to 10.15). They were also superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of operation time (MD 78.91 minutes, 95% CI 30.16 minutes to 127.65 minutes) and perioperative blood loss (MD 238.90 mL, 95% CI 182.66 mL to 295.14 mL), however, there was no difference in rate of reoperation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.51). Overall there were no differences for the primary or secondary outcomes when different types of surgical decompression techniques were compared among each other. The quality of evidence varied from 'very low quality' to 'high quality'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review show a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as to date no trials have compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results demonstrate that at present, decompression plus fusion and interspinous process spacers have not been shown to be superior to conventional decompression alone. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed in this field to confirm our results.

Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this study is to compare interspinous process device (IPD) implantation to other methods for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). PubMed and Cochrane library were searched in December 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPD implantation and nonoperative therapy or laminectomy with/without spinal fusion for the treatment of NIC due to spinal stenosis or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted as appropriate. Eleven articles (eight RCTs) were included, with two having high risk of bias. These RCTs were divided into three groups according to control cohort interventions: IPD implantation was compared with nonoperative treatment (group 1, n = 3), laminectomy (group 2, n = 3), and laminectomy associated with instrumented spinal fusion (group 3, n = 2). Group 1 studies reported better Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores for the IPD group. In group 2, two studies reported comparable ZCQ scores and one revealed comparable visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores; pooled analysis showed a higher reoperation rate in patients treated with IPD. In group 3, one study found that more patients in IPD group gained more than 25 % improvement in VAS and ODI, with lower complication rate; the other reported better ZCQ scores in the IPD group and comparable complication and reoperation rates. IPD implantation is more effective than the other methods, but not superior to laminectomy in treating NIC.

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment

BACKGROUND

Approved treatment modalities for the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis encompass a variety of direct and indirect methods of decompression, though all have varying degrees of limitations and morbidity which potentially limit the efficacy and durability of the treatment. The coflex(®) interlaminar stabilization implant (Paradigm Spine, New York, NY), examined under a United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) clinical trial, is shown to have durable outcomes when compared to posterolateral fusion in the setting of post-decompression stabilization for stenotic patients. Other clinical and radiographic parameters, more indicative of durability, were also evaluated. The data collected from these parameters were used to expand the FDA composite clinical success (CCS) endpoint; thus, creating a more stringent Therapeutic Sustainability Endpoint (TSE). The TSE allows more precise calculation of the durability of interlaminar stabilization (ILS) when compared to the fusion control group.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data generated from a prospective, randomized, level-1 trial that was conducted at 21 US sites was carried out. Three hundred forty-four per-protocol subjects were enrolled and randomized to ILS or fusion after decompression for lumbar stenosis with up to grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical, safety, and radiographic data were collected and analyzed in both groups. Four-year outcomes were assessed, and the TSE was calculated for both cohorts. The clinical and radiographic factors thought to be associated with therapeutic sustainability were added to the CCS endpoints which were used for premarket approval (PMA).

RESULTS

Success rate, comprised of no second intervention and an ODI improvement of ≥ 15 points, was 57.6% of ILS and 46.7% of fusion patients (p = 0.095). Adding lack of fusion in the ILS cohort and successful fusion in the fusion cohort showed a CCS of 42.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Finally, adding adjacent level success to both cohorts and maintenance of foraminal height in the coflex cohort showed a CCS of 36.6% and 25.6%, respectively. With additional follow-up to five years in the U.S. PMA study, these trends are expected to continue to show the superior therapeutic sustainability of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion after decompression for spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSION

There are clear differences in both therapeutic sustainability and intended clinical effect of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation after decompression for spinal stenosis. There are CCS differences between coflex and fusion cohorts noted at four years post-op similar to the trends revealed in the two year data used for PMA approval. When therapeutic sustainability outcomes are added to the CCS, ILS is proven to be a sustainable treatment for stabilization of the vertebral motion segment after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The management of spinal stenosis by surgery has increased rapidly in the past two decades, however, there is still controversy regarding the efficacy of surgery for this condition. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of surgery in the management of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2014. Hand searches were conducted on included articles and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgery compared to no treatment, placebo/sham, or to another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, recovery and quality of life. The PEDro scale was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE approach was used to summarise conclusions.

Results

Nineteen published reports (17 trials) were included. No trials were identified comparing surgery to no treatment or placebo/sham. Pooling revealed that decompression plus fusion is not superior to decompression alone for pain (mean difference –3.7, 95% confidence interval –15.6 to 8.1), disability (mean difference 9.8, 95% confidence interval –9.4 to 28.9), or walking ability (risk ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9). Interspinous process spacer devices are slightly more effective than decompression plus fusion for disability (mean difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 10.0), but they resulted in significantly higher reoperation rates when compared to decompression alone (28% v 7%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in the effectiveness between other surgical techniques for our main outcomes.

Conclusions

The relative efficacy of various surgical options for treatment of spinal stenosis remains uncertain. Decompression plus fusion is not more effective than decompression alone. Interspinous process spacer devices result in higher reoperation rates than bony decompression.

Decompression and paraspinous tension band: a novel treatment method for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prior studies have demonstrated the superiority of decompression and fusion over decompression alone for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. More recent studies have investigated whether nonfusion stabilization could provide durable clinical improvement after decompression and fusion.

PURPOSE

To examine the clinical safety and effectiveness of decompression and implantation of a novel flexion restricting paraspinous tension band (PTB) for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective clinical study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Forty-one patients (7 men and 34 women) aged 45 to 83 years (68.2 ± 9.0) were recruited with symptomatic spinal stenosis and Meyerding Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L3-L4 (8) or L4-L5 (33).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported measures included visual analog scale (VAS) for leg, back, and hip pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Physiologic measures included quantitative and qualitative radiographic analysis performed by an independent core laboratory.

METHODS

Patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis were prospectively enrolled at four European spine centers with independent monitoring of data. Clinical and radiographic outcome data collected preoperatively were compared with data collected at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. This study was sponsored by the PTB manufacturer (Simpirica Spine, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA), including institutional research support grants to the participating centers totaling approximately US $172,000.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements and clinically important effect sizes were seen for all pain and disability measurements. At 24 months follow-up, ODI scores were reduced by an average of 25.4 points (59%) and maximum leg pain on VAS by 48.1 mm (65%). Back pain VAS scores improved from 54.1 by an average of 28.5 points (53%). There was one postoperative wound infection (2.4%) and an overall reoperation rate of 12%. Eighty-two percent patients available for 24 months follow-up with a PTB in situ had a reduction in ODI of greater than 15 points and 74% had a reduction in maximum leg pain VAS of greater than 20 mm. According to Odom criteria, most of these patients (82%) had an excellent or good outcome with all except one patient satisfied with surgery. As measured by the independent core laboratory, there was no significant increase in spondylolisthesis, segmental flexion-extension range of motion, or translation and no loss of lordosis in the patients with PTB at the 2 years follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated with decompression and PTB demonstrated no progressive instability at 2 years follow-up. Excellent/good outcomes and significant improvements in patient-reported pain and disability scores were still observed at 2 years, with no evidence of implant failure or migration. Further study of this treatment method is warranted to validate these findings.

Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis

OBJECT

The purpose of this study was to quantify the perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with posterolateral spinal fusion (PSF) among Medicare enrollees with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and/or spondylolisthesis by using a national Medicare claims database.

METHODS

A 5% systematic sample of Medicare claims data (2005-2009) was used to identify outcomes in patients who had undergone PSF for a diagnosis of LSS and/or spondylolisthesis. Patients eligible for study inclusion also required a minimum of 2 years of follow-up and a claim history of at least 12 months prior to surgery.

RESULTS

A final cohort of 1672 patients was eligible for analysis. Approximately half (50.7%) had LSS only, 10.2% had spondylolisthesis only, and 39.1% had both LSS and spondylolisthesis. The average age was 71.4 years, and the average length of stay was 4.6 days. At 3 months and 1 and 2 years postoperatively, the incidence of spine reoperation was 10.9%, 13.3%, and 16.9%, respectively, whereas readmissions for complications occurred in 11.1%, 17.5%, and 24.9% of cases, respectively. At 2 years postoperatively, 36.2% of patients had either undergone spine reoperation and/or received an epidural injection. The average Medicare payment was $36,230 ± $17,020, $46,840 ± $31,350, and $61,610 ± $46,580 at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data showed that 1 in 6 elderly patients treated with PSF for LSS or spondylolisthesis underwent reoperation on the spine within 2 years of surgery, and nearly 1 in 4 patients was readmitted for a surgery-related complication. These data highlight several potential areas in which improvements may be made in the effective delivery and cost of surgical care for patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis.

Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spinal stenosis is expensive to treat and manage. A randomized, controlled, multicenter US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial assessed treatment-related patient outcomes comparing the Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization Device, an interlaminar stabilization implant inserted following decompressive surgical laminotomy in the lumbar spine, to instrumented posterolateral fusion among patients with moderate to severe spinal stenosis. This study uses patient-reported outcomes and clinical events from the trial along with costs and expected resource utilization to determine cost effectiveness.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model compared outcomes over 5 years. Clinical input parameters were derived from the trial. Oswestry Disability Index scores were converted to utilities. Treatment patterns over 5 years were estimated based on claims analyses and expert opinion. A third-party payer perspective was used; costs (in $US 2013) and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of key parameters. Analyses were conducted using Medicare payment rates and typical commercial reimbursements.

RESULTS

Five-year costs were lower for patients implanted with Coflex compared to those undergoing fusion. Average Medicare payments over 5 years were estimated at $15,182 for Coflex compared to $26,863 for the fusion control, a difference of $11,681. Mean quality-adjusted life years were higher for Coflex patients compared to controls (3.02 vs 2.97). Results indicate that patients implanted with the Coflex device derive more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion, but at substantially lower costs. The cost advantage was greater when evaluating commercial insurance payments. Subgroup analyses found that the cost advantage for Coflex relative to fusion was even larger for two-level procedures compared to one-level procedures.

CONCLUSION

The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. It provided higher utility at substantially lower cost.