Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-10-2015 | Original Article

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

Authors: C Röder, B. Baumgärtner, U. Berlemann, E. Aghayev

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 10/2015

Abstract

Introduction

Surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been associated with poorer outcomes in patients with pronounced low back pain (LBP) as compared to patients with predominant leg pain. This cross registry study assessed potential benefits of the interlaminar coflex^® device as an add-on to bony decompression alone.

Methods

Patients with lumbar decompression plus coflex^® (SWISSspine registry) were compared with decompressed controls (Spine Tango registry). Inclusion criteria were LSS and a preoperative back pain level of ≥5 points. 1:1 propensity score-based matching was performed. Outcome measures were back and leg pain relief, COMI score improvement, patient satisfaction, complication, and revision rates.

Results

50 matched pairs without residual significant differences but age were created. At the 7–9 months follow-up interval the coflex^® group had higher back (p = 0.014) and leg pain relief (p < 0.001) and COMI score improvement (p = 0.029) than the decompression group. Patient satisfaction was 90 % in both groups. No revision was documented in the coflex^® and one in the decompression group (2.0 %).

Discussion

In the short-term, lumbar decompression with coflex^® compared with decompression alone in patients with LSS and pronounced LBP at baseline is a safe and effective treatment option that appears beneficial regarding clinical and functional outcomes. However, residual confounding of non-measured covariables may have partially influenced our findings. Also, despite careful inclusion and exclusion of cases the cross registry approach introduces a potential for selection bias that we could not totally control for and that makes additional studies necessary.

Katz JN, Harris MB (2008) Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. New Engl J Med 358(8):818–825. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0708097 CrossRefPubMed

Ammendolia C, Stuber K, de Bruin LK, Furlan AD, Kennedy CA, Rampersaud YR, Steenstra IA, Pennick V (2012) Nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: a systematic review. Spine 37(10):E609–616. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318240d57d CrossRefPubMed

Costandi SCB, Mekhail M, Dews T, Mekhail N (2014) Lumbar spinal stenosis: therapeutic options review. Pain Pract. doi:10.1111/papr.12188 PubMedCentral

Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson A, Blood E, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H (2010) Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 35(14):1329–1338. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e0f04d PubMedCentralPubMed

Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? A prospective 10-year study. Spine 25(11):1424–1435 (discussion 1435–1426) CrossRefPubMed

Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E, Spine Tango Contributors (2014) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0 PubMed

Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J, Abdu W, Sengupta D, Frymoyer JW, Weinstein J (2011) Predominant leg pain is associated with better surgical outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: results from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 36(3):219–229. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d77c21 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, O’Riordan D, Mannion AF (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine 34(11):1198–1203. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819fcf35 CrossRefPubMed

Kaech DL, Fernandez C, Lombardi-Weber D (2002) The Interspinous ‘U’: a new restabilization device for the lumbar spine. In: Kaech DL, Jinkins JR (eds) Spinal restabilization procedures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 355–362

10.

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):1049–1056. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0657-2 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

11.

Tsai KJ, Murakami H, Lowery GL, Hutton WC (2006) A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex) used to stabilize the lumbar spine. J Surg Orthop Adv 15(3):167–172PubMed

12.

Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Roder C, Group SWR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18(6):851–861. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0934-8 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

13.

Aumüller G, Aust G, Engele J (2014) Anatomie, 3rd edn. Georg Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart. doi:10.1055/b-002-99154

14.

Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H, Auerbach JD (2013) Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial. Spine 38(18):1529–1539. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829a6d0a CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 14(10):1014–1026. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9 CrossRef

16.

Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33(1):90–94. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for casual effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRef

18.

Parsons LS (2015) Performing a 1:N case-control match on propensity score. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/165-29.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015

19.

Kong DS, Kim ES, Eoh W (2007) One-year outcome evaluation after interspinous implantation for degenerative spinal stenosis with segmental instability. J Korean Med Sci 22(2):330–335PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

20.

Adelt D (2010) The interspinous U implant (now Coflex): long-term outcome, study overview and differential indication. Orthopade 39(6):595–601. doi:10.1007/s00132-009-1589-1 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Celik H, Derincek A, Koksal I (2012) Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height? Turk Neurosurg 22(1):50–54. doi:10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.4681-11.2 PubMed

22.

Richter A, Halm HF, Hauck M, Quante M (2012) 2-Year follow-up After decompressive surgery with and without implantation of an interspinous device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective controlled study. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825f7203

23.

Park SC, Yoon SH, Hong YP, Kim KJ, Chung SK, Kim HJ (2009) Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous U (coflex). J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46(4):292–299. doi:10.3340/jkns.2009.46.4.292 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

24.

Kumar N, Shah SM, Ng YH, Pannierselvam VK, Dasde S, Shen L (2014) Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 8(2):161–169. doi:10.4184/asj.2014.8.2.161 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

25.

Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, van Zwet EW, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Koes BW, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Peul WC, Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (2013) Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 347:f6415. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6415 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

26.

Schmier JK, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K (2014) Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex(R) interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res CEOR 6:125–131. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S59194 CrossRef

27.

Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G, Albert T, Bridwell K, Zhao W, Grove MR, Weinstein MC, Weinstein JN (2011) Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 36(24):2061–2068. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318235457b PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

28.

Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL, Wu XL, Jin YL, Luo P, Chi YL, Wang XY (2014) Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(5):e97142. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097142 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

29.

Stromqvist BH, Berg S, Gerdhem P, Johnsson R, Moller A, Sahlstrand T, Soliman A, Tullberg T (2013) X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine 38(17):1436–1442. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828ba413 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Beyer F, Yagdiran A, Neu P, Kaulhausen T, Eysel P, Sobottke R (2013) Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J Off Pub Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 22(9):2015–2021. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2790-9 CrossRef

31.

Kim KA, McDonald M, Pik JH, Khoueir P, Wang MY (2007) Dynamic intraspinous spacer technology for posterior stabilization: case-control study on the safety, sagittal angulation, and pain outcome at 1-year follow-up evaluation. Neurosurg Focus 22(1):E7PubMed

32.

Zang L, Du P, Hai Y, Su QJ, Lu SB, Liu T (2013) Device related complications of the Coflex interspinous process implant for the lumbar spine. Chin Med J (Engl) 126(13):2517–2522

33.

Xu C, Ni WF, Tian NF, Hu XQ, Li F, Xu HZ (2013) Complications in degenerative lumbar disease treated with a dynamic interspinous spacer (Coflex). Int Orthop 37(11):2199–2204. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2006-2 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Title: 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
Authors: C Röder
B. Baumgärtner
U. Berlemann
E. Aghayev
Publication date: 01-10-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4124-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

A longitudinal study to assess the volumetric growth rate of spinal intradural extramedullary tumour diagnosed with schwannoma by magnetic resonance imaging

Evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases in 196 patients treated during 2005–2010

Relationship between lumbar spinal stenosis and psychosocial factors: a multicenter cross-sectional study (DISTO project)

The European Spine Journal ‘Reviewer Award’

Risk factors for major complications in surgery for hypervascular spinal tumors: an analysis of 120 cases with adjuvant preoperative embolization

Characterization of symptomatic lumbar foraminal stenosis by conventional imaging