Surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with microdecompression and interspinous distraction device insertion. A case series.

Avraam Ploumis, Pavlos Christodoulou, Dimitrios Kapoutsis, Ioannis Gelalis, Vasilios Vraggalas, Alexander Beris
Author Information
  1. Avraam Ploumis: Department of Orthopaedics, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. aploumis@cc.uoi.gr

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interspinous distraction devices (IPDD) are indicated as stand-alone devices for the treatment of spinal stenosis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of patients undergoing surgery for spinal stenosis with a combination of unilateral microdecompression and interspinous distraction device insertion.
METHODS: This is a prospective clinical and radiological study of minimum 2 years follow-up. Twenty-two patients (average age 64.5 years) with low-back pain and unilateral sciatica underwent decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Index and walking capacity plus radiologic measurements of posterior disc height of the involved level and lumbar lordosis Cobb angle were documented both preoperatively and postoperatively. One-sided posterior subarticular and foraminal decompression was conducted followed by dynamic stabilization of the diseased level with an IPDD (X-STOP).
RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 27.4 months. Visual Analogue Scale and Oswestry Disability Index improved statistically significantly (p < 0.001) in the last follow-up exam. Also, the walking distance increased in all patients but two. Posterior intervertebral disc height of the diseased level widened average 1.8 mm in the postoperative radiograph compared to the preoperative. No major complication, including implant failure or spinous process breakage, has been observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The described surgical technique using unilateral microdecompression and IPDD insertion is a clinically effective and radiologically viable treatment method for symptoms of spinal stenosis resistant to non-operative treatment.

References

  1. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Jul;19(5):323-7 [PMID: 16826002]
  2. Radiology. 2000 Apr;215(1):247-53 [PMID: 10751495]
  3. J Spinal Disord. 1994 Oct;7(5):388-93 [PMID: 7819638]
  4. Radiology. 1998 May;207(2):391-8 [PMID: 9577486]
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 1;28(19):2192-7 [PMID: 14520030]
  6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Apr 1;21(7):796-803 [PMID: 8779009]
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 15;30(12):1351-8 [PMID: 15959362]
  8. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 May 20;32(12):1345-8 [PMID: 17515824]
  9. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 15;37(11):E662-7 [PMID: 22146288]
  10. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1266-72; discussion 1273-4 [PMID: 15928550]
  11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 1;30(7):744-9 [PMID: 15803075]
  12. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 15;30(8):903-7 [PMID: 15834334]
  13. Eur Spine J. 2004 Feb;13(1):22-31 [PMID: 14685830]
  14. Eur Spine J. 2003 Oct;12 Suppl 2:S170-5 [PMID: 13680315]
  15. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Dec 15;22(24):2813-22 [PMID: 9431617]
  16. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jan 1;21(1):92-8 [PMID: 9122770]
  17. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003 Apr;34(2):281-95 [PMID: 12914268]
  18. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Feb;17(1):72-7; discussion 78 [PMID: 14734979]
  19. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Aug 15;30(16 Suppl):S73-8 [PMID: 16103838]
  20. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004 Jan;35(1):43-56 [PMID: 15062717]
  21. Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):823-9 [PMID: 19387698]
  22. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jan 1;28(1):26-32 [PMID: 12544951]
  23. Eur Spine J. 2009 Nov;18(11):1686-94 [PMID: 19727852]
  24. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jul 15;36(16):E1080-5 [PMID: 21343860]
  25. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Nov 1;24(21):2229-33 [PMID: 10562989]
  26. Eur Spine J. 2009 Oct;18(10):1494-503 [PMID: 19562386]

MeSH Term

Aged
Decompression, Surgical
Humans
Low Back Pain
Lumbar Vertebrae
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Radiography
Sciatica
Spinal Stenosis
Treatment Outcome

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0spinalstenosistreatmentdistractionIPDDpatientsunilateralmicrodecompressioninsertionfollow-upaveragelumbarleveldevicesstudysurgeryinterspinousdeviceyearsVisualAnalogueScaleOswestryDisabilityIndexwalkingposteriordischeightdiseasedBACKGROUND:Interspinousindicatedstand-alonepurposeevaluateresultsundergoingcombinationMETHODS:prospectiveclinicalradiologicalminimum2Twenty-twoage645low-backpainsciaticaunderwentdecompressivecapacityplusradiologicmeasurementsinvolvedlordosisCobbangledocumentedpreoperativelypostoperativelyOne-sidedsubarticularforaminaldecompressionconductedfolloweddynamicstabilizationX-STOPRESULTS:time274monthsimprovedstatisticallysignificantlyp<0001lastexamAlsodistanceincreasedtwoPosteriorintervertebralwidened18mmpostoperativeradiographcomparedpreoperativemajorcomplicationincludingimplantfailurespinousprocessbreakageobservedCONCLUSIONS:describedsurgicaltechniqueusingclinicallyeffectiveradiologicallyviablemethodsymptomsresistantnon-operativeSurgicalcaseseries

Similar Articles

Cited By