Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 2/2017

01-06-2017 | Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)

Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis

Authors: Raj J. Gala, Glenn S. Russo, Peter G. Whang

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of review

Lumbar spinal stenosis has historically been treated with open decompressive surgery which is associated with significant morbidity and may give rise to various complications. Interspinous spacers (ISS) have been developed as a less invasive strategy which may serve to avoid many of these risks. The two current spacers that are FDA approved and commercially available are the Coflex and Superion devices. The goal is to review these two implants, their indications, and patient selection.

Recent findings

The Coflex device has been shown to be analogous to decompression and fusion when treating moderate spinal stenosis. It provides dynamic stability after a decompression is performed, without the rigidity of pedicle-screw instrumentation. Recent results show improved outcomes in Coflex patients at 3 years of follow-up, as compared to decompression and fusion.
The Superion implant is placed percutaneously in the interspinous space with minimal disruption of spinal anatomy. When compared to the X-Stop device (which is no longer available), the Superion implant shows improved outcomes at 3 years of follow-up.

Summary

ISS are lesser invasive options as compared to formal decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Literature
1.
Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(17):2046–52.CrossRef
2.
3.
Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, Reilly J. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978;3(4):319–28.CrossRef
4.
Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(4):467–74.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(1):1–8.CrossRef
6.
7.
Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupre GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):744–9.CrossRef
8.
9.
10.
•• Bae HW, Davis RJ, Lauryssen C, Leary S, Maislin G, Musacchio Jr MJ. Three-year follow-up of the prospective, randomized, controlled trial of coflex interlaminar stabilization vs instrumented fusion in patients with lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(2):169–81. doi:10.​1227/​neu.​0000000000001237​. The FDA post-approval study, presenting 36 month follow-up data of the randomized, controlled trial, comparing decompression and coflex with decompression and instrumented fusion. Patients underwent one- or two-level surgery CrossRefPubMed
11.
• Chen XL, Guan L, Liu YZ, Yang JC, Wang WL, Hai Y. Interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion versus double-segment fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum follow-up of three years. Int Orthop. 2016;40(6):1275–83. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-016-3199-y. A retrospective cohort study evaluating the “topping off” technique. The authors compared 88 patients who underwent two-level lumbar decompression and fusion, with 76 patients who underwent one-level fusion with Coflex implantation in the adjacent superior level. Average follow-up was around 48 months CrossRefPubMed
12.
• Kong C, Lu S, Hai Y, Zang L. Biomechanical effect of interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion on range of motion of the transition segment and the adjacent segment. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30(4):355–9. doi:10.​1016/​j.​clinbiomech.​2015.​02.​012. Biomechanical study of the “topping off” technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating four different configurations: 1) no intervention, 2) fusion at L5/S1, 3) fusion at L5/S1 with decompression at L4/5, and 4) fusion at L5/S1 with decompression and Coflex insertion at L4/5. CrossRef
13.
• Che W, Chen Q, Ma YQ, Jiang YQ, Yuan W, Zhou XG et al. Single-level rigid fixation combined with Coflex: a biomechanical study. Medical Science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2016;22:1022–1027. Biomechanical study of the “topping off” technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating two different configurations: 1) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4/5, 2) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4/5 with Coflex insertion at L3/4.
14.
• Roder C, Baumgartner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E. Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(10):2228–35. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-015-4124-6. Database retrospective chart review, comparing 50 matched pairs of patients who either underwent lumbar decompression alone or lumbar decompression with Coflex insertion. Follow-up was less than one year. CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
17.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Superion InterSpinous Spacer. 2015. Accessed 12/01/2016.
18.
• Lauryssen C, Jackson RJ, Baron JM, Tallarico RA, Lavelle WF, Deutsch H, et al. Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert review of medical devices. 2015;12(6):763–9. doi:10.​1586/​17434440.​2015.​1100071. Patients from the Superion clinical trial were compared against historical controls for decompressive laminectomy. Outcomes were evaluated at 24 months after intervention CrossRefPubMed
19.
•• Patel VV, Nunley PD, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Davis RP, et al. Superion® interspinous spacer for treatment of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: durable three-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2015a;8:657–62. doi:10.​2147/​jpr.​s92633. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 36 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
• Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Nunley PD, Davis RP, et al. Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015b;40(5):275–82. doi:10.​1097/​brs.​0000000000000735​. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 24 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop CrossRef
21.
• Schmier JK, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K. Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR. 2014;6:125–31. doi:10.​2147/​ceor.​s59194. Cost-effectiveness study, looking at five-year costs, of decompression and Coflex insertion compared to decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion CrossRef
22.
• Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:28. doi:10.​14444/​2028. Cost-effectiveness study comparing conservative care, decompression, or Superion implant, for treating lumbar spinal stenosis. Cost analyses were evaluated at the two-year mark. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis
Authors
Raj J. Gala
Glenn S. Russo
Peter G. Whang
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 2/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9413-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 2/2017 Go to the issue

Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)

Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials

Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)

Lumbar disc replacement surgery—successes and obstacles to widespread adoption

Orthopaedic Health Policy (A Miller, section editor)

Osteoporosis: a discussion on the past 5 years

Orthopaedic Health Policy (A Miller, section editor)

Patient satisfaction in musculoskeletal medicine

Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)

Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review

Orthopaedic Health Policy (A Miller, section editor)

Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data