Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Original Article

Herniectomy versus herniectomy with the DIAM spinal stabilization system in patients with sciatica and concomitant low back pain: results of a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial

Authors: Ferdinand Krappel, Marco Brayda-Bruno, Giovanni Alessi, Jean-Michel Remacle, Luis Alberto Lopez, Jesus Javier Fernández, Gianluca Maestretti, Christian W. A. Pfirrmann

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the short and medium term efficacy and patient outcomes of DIAM spinal stabilization system on back pain, disability, leg pain and quality of life.

Methods

165 patients were enrolled; 146 patients with a single level disc herniation (L2 to L5) were randomized: 75 investigational (herniectomy and DIAM) and 71 control (herniectomy alone) treated and followed up for 24 months.

Results

Significant improvements overtime (P < 0.001) in both groups but not significantly different between groups for visual analog scale (VAS) back pain at 6 months (investigational −3.97 ± 2.55 vs control–3.37 ± 3.15, P = 0.228) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months (−38.55 ± 20.10 vs −37.19 ± 22.61, P = 0.719). For both outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, at all postoperative time points. Although the enrolment ended before the intended sample size (308 patients) was reached, the number of patients reaching the VAS back pain minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥2.2 at 6 months was higher in the investigational (79.4 % vs control 57.1 %, P = 0.008). These results were sustained throughout 24 months (82.8 vs 64.4 %, P < 0.05). In average, surgical duration (P < 0.001), blood loss (P = 0.029) and skin incision (P < 0.001) in the investigational were 10 min longer, 22.5 ml greater and 2.0 cm wider than control group (median values). Improved tertiary outcomes from BL to 24 mo in both groups (investigational vs control): VAS leg pain (mean decrease −6.41 ± 2.57 to −6.41 vs −5.61 ± to −3.30); improved quality of life (SF-36: 20.68 ± 9.44 vs 16.90 ± 10.74); pain medication reduction: 56.7 vs 47.9 %; return to work: 45.7 vs 38.0 %. Adverse event rates: 68.5 % investigational and 66.2 % control.

Conclusions

This is the first randomized controlled trial to report equivalent efficacy and safety of herniectomy with or without DIAM spinal stabilizing device. Leg pain, back pain and the level of disability were not significantly different between groups; however, number of patients reaching the MCID for back pain was significantly higher in the investigational group at 6 through 24 months.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jacobs WC, Arts MP, van Tulder MW et al (2012) Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review. Eur Spine J 21(11):2232–2251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jacobs WC, Arts MP, van Tulder MW et al (2012) Surgical techniques for sciatica due to herniated disc, a systematic review. Eur Spine J 21(11):2232–2251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Toyone T, Tanaka T, Kato D, Kaneyama R (2004) Low-back pain following surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(5):893–896CrossRefPubMed Toyone T, Tanaka T, Kato D, Kaneyama R (2004) Low-back pain following surgery for lumbar disc herniation. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(5):893–896CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Hirabayashi K (2001) Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(6):652–657CrossRef Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, Hirabayashi K (2001) Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(6):652–657CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Godil SS, Sivasubramanian P, Cahill K, Ziewacz J, McGirt MJ (2015) Incidence of low back pain after lumbar discectomy for herniated disc and its effect on patient reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1988–1999CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Godil SS, Sivasubramanian P, Cahill K, Ziewacz J, McGirt MJ (2015) Incidence of low back pain after lumbar discectomy for herniated disc and its effect on patient reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:1988–1999CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Minns RJ, Walsh WK (1997) Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine 22(16):1819–1825 (discussion 1826–7) CrossRefPubMed Minns RJ, Walsh WK (1997) Preliminary design and experimental studies of a novel soft implant for correcting sagittal plane instability in the lumbar spine. Spine 22(16):1819–1825 (discussion 1826–7) CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Gaitanis IN, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2006) Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy. Spine J 6(6):714–722CrossRefPubMed Phillips FM, Voronov LI, Gaitanis IN, Carandang G, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2006) Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy. Spine J 6(6):714–722CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Haussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A (2008) Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17(8):1049–1056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Haussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A (2008) Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 17(8):1049–1056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Bellini CM, Galbusera F, Raimondi MT, Mineo GV, Brayda-Bruno M (2007) Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(6):423–429CrossRefPubMed Bellini CM, Galbusera F, Raimondi MT, Mineo GV, Brayda-Bruno M (2007) Biomechanics of the lumbar spine after dynamic stabilization. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(6):423–429CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN et al (2010) Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 13(5):568–575CrossRefPubMed Anasetti F, Galbusera F, Aziz HN et al (2010) Spine stability after implantation of an interspinous device: an in vitro and finite element biomechanical study. J Neurosurg Spine 13(5):568–575CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Taylor J, Pupin P, Delajoux S, Palmer S (2007) Device for intervertebral assisted motion: technique and initial results. Neurosurg Focus 22(1):E6CrossRefPubMed Taylor J, Pupin P, Delajoux S, Palmer S (2007) Device for intervertebral assisted motion: technique and initial results. Neurosurg Focus 22(1):E6CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Zhao Y, Wang YP, Qiu GX, Zhao H, Zhang JG, Zhou X (2010) Efficacy of the Dynamic Interspinous Assisted Motion system in clinical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 123(21):2974–2977 Zhao Y, Wang YP, Qiu GX, Zhao H, Zhang JG, Zhou X (2010) Efficacy of the Dynamic Interspinous Assisted Motion system in clinical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 123(21):2974–2977
12.
go back to reference Ryu SJ, Kim IS (2010) Interspinous implant with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47(5):338–344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ryu SJ, Kim IS (2010) Interspinous implant with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47(5):338–344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Buric J, Pulidori M (2011) Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series. Eur Spine J 20(8):1304–1311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Buric J, Pulidori M (2011) Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series. Eur Spine J 20(8):1304–1311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Schroeder JE, Kaplan L, Barzilay S, Barzilay Y (2011) Interspinous devices: are they as attractive as they seem? An intermediate-term follow-up. Evid Based Spine Care J 2(2):19–24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schroeder JE, Kaplan L, Barzilay S, Barzilay Y (2011) Interspinous devices: are they as attractive as they seem? An intermediate-term follow-up. Evid Based Spine Care J 2(2):19–24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Krappel FA (2010) Long-term results, status of studies and differential indication regarding the DIAM implant. Orthopade 39(6):585–594CrossRefPubMed Krappel FA (2010) Long-term results, status of studies and differential indication regarding the DIAM implant. Orthopade 39(6):585–594CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273PubMed Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273PubMed
18.
go back to reference Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(1):46–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(1):46–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN et al (2012) Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 16(5):471–478CrossRefPubMed Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN et al (2012) Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine 16(5):471–478CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 8(6):968–974CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 8(6):968–974CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Hanley EN Jr, Shapiro DE (1989) The development of low-back pain after excision of a lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(5):719–721CrossRefPubMed Hanley EN Jr, Shapiro DE (1989) The development of low-back pain after excision of a lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(5):719–721CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kotilainen E, Valtonen S (1993) Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 125(1–4):120–126CrossRef Kotilainen E, Valtonen S (1993) Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 125(1–4):120–126CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hrabalek L, Machac J, Vaverka M (2009) The DIAM spinal stabilisation system to treat degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 76(5):417–423PubMed Hrabalek L, Machac J, Vaverka M (2009) The DIAM spinal stabilisation system to treat degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 76(5):417–423PubMed
24.
go back to reference Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S et al (2005) Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl 92:129–131CrossRefPubMed Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S et al (2005) Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl 92:129–131CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, Abdu WA, Hilibrand AL, Boden SD, Deyo RA (2006) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296:2441–2450CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson ANA, Hanscom B, Skinner JS, Abdu WA, Hilibrand AL, Boden SD, Deyo RA (2006) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA 296:2441–2450CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Herniectomy versus herniectomy with the DIAM spinal stabilization system in patients with sciatica and concomitant low back pain: results of a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial
Authors
Ferdinand Krappel
Marco Brayda-Bruno
Giovanni Alessi
Jean-Michel Remacle
Luis Alberto Lopez
Jesus Javier Fernández
Gianluca Maestretti
Christian W. A. Pfirrmann
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4796-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

European Spine Journal 3/2017 Go to the issue