Article

Interspinous Spacer versus Traditional Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 05/2014; 9(5):e97142. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097142
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Dynamic interspinous spacers, such as X-stop, Coflex, DIAM, and Aperius, are widely used for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, controversy remains as to whether dynamic interspinous spacer use is superior to traditional decompressive surgery.
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched during August 2013. A track search was performed on February 27, 2014. Study was included in this review if it was: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomized prospective comparison study, (2) comparing the clinical outcomes for interspinous spacer use versus traditional decompressive surgery, (3) in a minimum of 30 patients, (4) with a follow-up duration of at least 12 months.
Two RCTs and three non-randomized prospective studies were included, with 204 patients in the interspinous spacer (IS) group and 217 patients in the traditional decompressive surgery (TDS) group. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the IS and TDS groups for low back pain (WMD: 1.2; 95% CI: -10.12, 12.53; P = 0.03; I2 = 66%), leg pain (WMD: 7.12; 95% CI: -3.88, 18.12; P = 0.02; I2 = 70%), ODI (WMD: 6.88; 95% CI: -14.92, 28.68; P = 0.03; I2 = 79%), RDQ (WMD: -1.30, 95% CI: -3.07, 0.47; P = 0.00; I2 = 0%), or complications (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61, 3.14; P = 0.23; I2 = 28%). The TDS group had a significantly lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.77, 6.31; P = 0.60; I2 = 0%).
Although patients may obtain some benefits from interspinous spacers implanted through a minimally invasive technique, interspinous spacer use is associated with a higher incidence of reoperation and higher cost. The indications, risks, and benefits of using an interspinous process device should be carefully considered before surgery.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
52 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.
    Journal of Epidemiology &amp Community Health 07/1998; 52(6):377-84. DOI:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · 3.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prospective observational study. To prospectively assess the clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis before and at periodic intervals after X Stop implantation and to compare the data with previous studies. The X Stop Interspinous Process Distraction Device is a relatively new interspinous implant designed for patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis particularly neurogenic claudication. Previously, a randomized study has shown a 75% improvement in symptoms and physical function at 1-year post-X Stop implantation for lumbar spinal stenosis. The only other study is a preliminary report of only 10 patients with variable intervals of clinical outcome assessment. Forty consecutive patients were enrolled and surgically treated with X Stop implantation. The X Stop device was implanted at the stenotic segment, which was either at 1 or 2 levels in each patient. They were clinically evaluated at the preoperative, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year stage with clinical questionnaires (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36). Sixteen patients failed to complete all the questionnaires at all time intervals and hence were excluded, leaving 24 patients who had completed all questionnaire at all time interval. By 12 months, 54% of these 24 patients reported clinically significant improvement in their symptoms, 33% reported clinically significant improvement in physical function, and 71% expressed satisfaction with the procedure. 29% of the patients required caudal epidural after 12 months after surgery for recurrence of their symptoms of neurogenic claudication. The results of this prospective observational study indicate that X Stop offers significant short-term improvement over a 1-year period. It is a safe, effective, and less invasive alternative for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results, however, are less favorable than the previous multicenter, randomized study.
    Spine 06/2007; 32(12):1345-8. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31805b7694 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter trial comparing the outcomes of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) patients treated with the interspinous process decompression system (X STOP) with patients treated nonoperatively. To determine the safety and efficacy of the X STOP interspinous implant. Patients suffering from NIC secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis have been limited to a choice between nonoperative therapies and decompressive surgical procedures, with or without fusion. The X STOP was developed to provide an alternative therapeutic treatment. METHODS.: 191 patients were treated, 100 in the X STOP group and 91 in the control group. The primary outcomes measure was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, a patient-completed, validated instrument for NIC. At every follow-up visit, X STOP patients had significantly better outcomes in each domain of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. At 2 years, the X STOP patients improved by 45.4% over the mean baseline Symptom Severity score compared with 7.4% in the control group; the mean improvement in the Physical Function domain was 44.3% in the X STOP group and -0.4% in the control group. In the X STOP group, 73.1% patients were satisfied with their treatment compared with 35.9% of control patients. The X STOP provides a conservative yet effective treatment for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis. In the continuum of treatment options, the X STOP offers an attractive alternative to both conservative care and decompressive surgery.
    Spine 07/2005; 30(12):1351-8. DOI:10.1097/01.brs.0000166618.42749.d1 · 2.45 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
6 Downloads
Available from