Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Alex Alfieri, Roberto Gazzeri, Julian Prell, Christian Scheller, Jens Rachinger, Christian Strauss, Andreas Schwarz
Author Information
  1. Alex Alfieri: Department of Neurosurgery, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany. alex.alfieri@medizin.uni-halle.de

Abstract

The interspinous distraction devices are used to treat variable pathologies ranging from facet syndrome, diskogenic low back pain, degenerative spinal stenosis, diskopathy, spondylolisthesis, and instability. The insertion of a posterior element with an interspinous device (ISD) is commonly judged responsive to a relative kyphosis of a lumbar segment with a moderate but persistent increase of the spinal canal and of the foraminal width and area, and without influence on low-grade spondylolisthesis. The consequence is the need of shared specific biomechanical concepts to give for each degenerative problem the right indication through a critical analysis of all available experimental and clinical biomechanical data. We reviewed systematically the available clinical and experimental data about kyphosis, enlargement of the spinal canal, distraction of the interspinous distance, increase of the neural foramina, ligamentous structures, load of the posterior annulus, intradiskal pressure, strength of the spinous processes, degeneration of the adjacent segment, complications, and cost-effectiveness of the ISD. The existing literature does not provide actual scientific evidence over the superiority of the ISD strategy, but most of the experimental and clinical data show a challenging potential. These considerations are applicable with different types of ISD with only few differences between the different categories. Despite--or because of--the low invasiveness of the surgical implantation of the ISD, this technique promises to play a major role in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. The main indications for ISD remain lumbar spinal stenoses and painful facet arthroses. A clear documented contraindication is the presence of an anterolisthesis. Nevertheless, the existing literature does not provide evidence of superiority of outcome and cost-effectiveness of the ISD strategy over laminectomy or other surgical procedures. At this time, the devices should be used in clinical randomized independent trials in order to obtain more information concerning the most advantageous optimal indication or, in selected cases, to treat tailored indications.

References

  1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 May 20;32(12):1345-8 [PMID: 17515824]
  2. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Dec;5(6):500-7 [PMID: 17176013]
  3. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Apr;21(2):120-5 [PMID: 18391717]
  4. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 1;34(10):1094-109 [PMID: 19363455]
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Sep 15;25(18):2333-41 [PMID: 10984785]
  6. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jun 11;9:84 [PMID: 18547409]
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 1;29(11):1208-16 [PMID: 15167660]
  8. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002 Oct;15(5):415-9 [PMID: 12394667]
  9. Z Mikrosk Anat Forsch. 1989;103(4):664-74 [PMID: 2815931]
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Oct 15;33(22):E820-7 [PMID: 18923305]
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 1;25(3):319-23 [PMID: 10703103]
  12. Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):949-55 [PMID: 15717190]
  13. Eur Spine J. 2004 Feb;13(1):22-31 [PMID: 14685830]
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 1;34(10):E380-3 [PMID: 19404170]
  15. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985 May;10(4):383-9 [PMID: 4049099]
  16. Neurosurgery. 2010 Mar;66(3 Suppl Operative):126-32; discussion 132-3 [PMID: 20173562]
  17. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Jul;19(5):323-7 [PMID: 16826002]
  18. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Nov 15;29(22):2527-32; discussion 2532 [PMID: 15543067]
  19. Orthopade. 2010 Jun;39(6):573-9 [PMID: 20424821]
  20. J Biomech. 1992 Nov;25(11):1351-6 [PMID: 1400536]
  21. Pain Physician. 2010 Jan-Feb;13(1):43-9 [PMID: 20119462]
  22. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139(3):169-75 [PMID: 9143580]
  23. Eur Spine J. 2003 Oct;12 Suppl 2:S176-80 [PMID: 12961080]
  24. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 May;20(3):255-61 [PMID: 17473649]
  25. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003 Nov-Dec;28(6):509-11 [PMID: 14634939]
  26. Anesth Analg. 2008 Feb;106(2):654-8, table of contents [PMID: 18227330]
  27. Eur Spine J. 2008 Dec;17 Suppl 4:480-91 [PMID: 19005701]
  28. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Aug 15;22(16):1819-25; discussion 1826-7 [PMID: 9280017]
  29. Spine J. 2006 Sep-Oct;6(5):524-8 [PMID: 16934721]
  30. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 15;25(14):1754-9 [PMID: 10888941]
  31. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 May 27;11:100 [PMID: 20507568]
  32. Neurosurgery. 2002 Nov;51(5 Suppl):S166-81 [PMID: 12234445]
  33. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Feb;17(1):72-7; discussion 78 [PMID: 14734979]
  34. Arthritis Res Ther. 2003;5(3):120-30 [PMID: 12723977]
  35. J Spinal Disord. 1988;1(4):257-66 [PMID: 2980253]
  36. J Biomech. 2000 Jun;33(6):765-70 [PMID: 10807999]
  37. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 15;30(16 Suppl):S73-8 [PMID: 16103838]
  38. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010 May;23(3):203-7 [PMID: 20065864]
  39. Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):681-8 [PMID: 15541703]
  40. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Feb 1;27(3):223-9 [PMID: 11805682]
  41. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19):2189-94 [PMID: 16946652]
  42. J Korean Med Sci. 2007 Apr;22(2):330-5 [PMID: 17449945]
  43. Br J Anaesth. 1979 Mar;51(3):253-8 [PMID: 435350]
  44. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 21;358(8):794-810 [PMID: 18287602]
  45. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jul 1;33(15):1701-7 [PMID: 18594464]
  46. Eur Spine J. 2004 May;13(3):193-8 [PMID: 14752624]
  47. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1982 May-Jun;7(3):192-203 [PMID: 6214027]
  48. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2010 Nov;152(11):1961-7 [PMID: 20635103]
  49. Neurosurg Rev. 2009 Jul;32(3):335-41; discussion 341-2 [PMID: 19387709]
  50. Eur Spine J. 1994;3(3):172-6 [PMID: 7866831]
  51. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 1;28(19):2192-7 [PMID: 14520030]
  52. Neurosurgery. 2008 Jul;63(1 Suppl 1):ONS108-13; discussion ONS114 [PMID: 18728587]
  53. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1980 May-Jun;5(3):245-53 [PMID: 7394664]
  54. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Jul;17(7):834-7 [PMID: 1502650]
  55. Eur Spine J. 2006 Dec;15(12):1823-32 [PMID: 16823556]
  56. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 1;27(7):776-86 [PMID: 11923673]
  57. J Appl Biomech. 2006 Aug;22(3):234-9 [PMID: 17215555]
  58. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Apr;15(4):262-8 [PMID: 2353270]
  59. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008 Apr;21(2):79-85 [PMID: 18391709]
  60. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 May;21(4):330-6 [PMID: 16434133]
  61. Eur Spine J. 2006 May;15(5):597-604 [PMID: 16133080]
  62. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Nov;11(9):944-50 [PMID: 2950600]
  63. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Apr;8(4):341-6 [PMID: 18377319]
  64. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Apr;12(3):305-7 [PMID: 3296238]
  65. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 15;30(12):1351-8 [PMID: 15959362]
  66. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Jul;13(1):39-46 [PMID: 20594016]
  67. Chin J Traumatol. 2008 Dec;11(6):364-7 [PMID: 19032852]
  68. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Apr;14(4):417-9 [PMID: 2524111]
  69. J Neurosurg. 2001 Oct;95(2 Suppl):179-89 [PMID: 11599834]
  70. Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Jun;28(6):E8 [PMID: 20568923]
  71. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2006 Jan-Feb;144(1):68-73 [PMID: 16498563]
  72. Anesth Analg. 1984 May;63(5):499-502 [PMID: 6711844]
  73. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2006 Fall;15(3):167-72 [PMID: 17087886]
  74. J Orthop Res. 1991 May;9(3):452-62 [PMID: 2010850]
  75. J Spinal Disord. 1990 Mar;3(1):77-86 [PMID: 2134415]
  76. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jun 15;35(14):1329-38 [PMID: 20453723]
  77. Eur Spine J. 2010 Feb;19(2):283-9 [PMID: 19967546]
  78. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Dec 1;32(25):E785-8 [PMID: 18245995]
  79. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 1;30(7):744-9 [PMID: 15803075]
  80. Med Eng Phys. 2003 Apr;25(3):221-7 [PMID: 12589720]
  81. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jul 1;25(13):1739-41 [PMID: 10870155]
  82. Spine J. 2010 Mar;10(3):244-51 [PMID: 20004622]
  83. Eur Spine J. 2006 Jun;15(6):908-12 [PMID: 15926059]
  84. Eur Spine J. 2008 Aug;17(8):1049-56 [PMID: 18584219]
  85. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Nov 15;30(22):2510-5 [PMID: 16284588]
  86. Eur Spine J. 2009 Nov;18(11):1686-94 [PMID: 19727852]
  87. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Jul 1;31(15):1658-65 [PMID: 16816759]
  88. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Oct;19(7):477-82 [PMID: 17021410]
  89. J Orthop Res. 2006 Mar;24(3):385-92 [PMID: 16479572]
  90. J Spinal Disord. 1996 Jun;9(3):246-50 [PMID: 8854281]
  91. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Mar;8(3):255-62 [PMID: 18312077]
  92. Neurosurgery. 2009 Jul;65(1):111-19; discussion 119-20 [PMID: 19574832]
  93. Eur Spine J. 2009 Oct;18(10):1494-503 [PMID: 19562386]
  94. Eur Spine J. 2002 Oct;11 Suppl 2:S164-9 [PMID: 12384740]
  95. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Jun;168(6):1481-6 [PMID: 9168711]
  96. Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):830-40 [PMID: 19387697]
  97. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2005 Oct;50(10):343-7 [PMID: 16300050]
  98. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006 Jun;4(6):463-71 [PMID: 16776357]
  99. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Dec 16;149(12):845-53 [PMID: 19075203]
  100. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Apr;15(4):200-7 [PMID: 17426291]
  101. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Feb 1;35(3):E96-100 [PMID: 20075767]
  102. G Chir. 2010 May;31(5):247-50 [PMID: 20615370]
  103. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jun 1;33(13):1429-37 [PMID: 18520938]

MeSH Term

Biomechanical Phenomena
Costs and Cost Analysis
Humans
Joint Instability
Kyphosis
Osteogenesis, Distraction
Spinal Canal
Spinal Diseases
Spinal Stenosis
Spine
Treatment Outcome

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ISDinterspinousspinallumbarclinicaldistractiondegenerativeexperimentaldatadevicesusedtreatfacetlowspondylolisthesisposteriorkyphosissegmentincreasecanalbiomechanicalindicationavailableneuralcost-effectivenessexistingliteratureprovideevidencesuperioritystrategydifferentsurgicalindicationsvariablepathologiesrangingsyndromediskogenicbackpainstenosisdiskopathyinstabilityinsertionelementdevicecommonlyjudgedresponsiverelativemoderatepersistentforaminalwidthareawithoutinfluencelow-gradeconsequenceneedsharedspecificconceptsgiveproblemrightcriticalanalysisreviewedsystematicallyenlargementdistanceforaminaligamentousstructuresloadannulusintradiskalpressurestrengthspinousprocessesdegenerationadjacentcomplicationsactualscientificshowchallengingpotentialconsiderationsapplicabletypesdifferencescategoriesDespite--orof--theinvasivenessimplantationtechniquepromisesplaymajorrolefuturemicrosurgerymainremainstenosespainfularthrosescleardocumentedcontraindicationpresenceanterolisthesisNeverthelessoutcomelaminectomyprocedurestimerandomizedindependenttrialsorderobtaininformationconcerningadvantageousoptimalselectedcasestailoredRoleelements

Similar Articles

Cited By