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

Volumn 38, Issue 18, 2013, Pages 1529-1539

  Davis, Reginald J ^a   Errico, Thomas J ^b   Bae, Hyun ^c   Auerbach, Joshua D ^d  

^a Greater Baltimore Neurosurgical   (United States)

^b NYU HOSPITAL FOR JOINT DISEASES   (United States)

^c Spine Institute   (United States)

^d BRONX LEBANON HOSPITAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cofl ex interlaminar stabilization; degenerative spondylolisthesis; spinal fusion; spinal stenosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE SAFETY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERLAMINAL FIXATION DEVICE; LAMINECTOMY; LEG PAIN; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; OPERATION DURATION; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PEDICLE SCREW; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REOPERATION; SHORT FORM 12; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; UNITED STATES; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BONE SCREWS; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; DEVICE APPROVAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; SPINAL STENOSIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883445929     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829a6d0a     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Burnett MG, Stein SC, Bartels RH. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:39-46.
2. Mannion AF, Denzler R, Dvorak J, et al. Five-year outcome of surgical decompression of the lumbar spine without fusion. Eur Spine J 2010;19:1883-91.
3. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358:794-810.
4. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1329-38.
5. Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Robson D, et al. Surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: four-year outcomes from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:556-62.
6. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:802-8.
7. Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K. Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986;11:107-10.
8. Jonsson B, Annertz M, Sjoberg C, et al. A prospective and consecutive study of surgically treated lumbar spinal stenosis. Part II: Fiveyear follow-up by an independent observer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2938-44.
9. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, et al. Seven-to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:92-8.
10. Kleinstuck FS, Grob D, Lattig F, et al. The infl uence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1198-203.
11. Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970-1993. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:2256S-65S.
12. Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J, et al. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:219-29.
13. Johnsson KE, Redlund-Johnell I, Uden A, et al. Preoperative and postoperative instability in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:591-3.
14. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2229-33.
15. Sengupta DK, Herkowitz HN. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:S71-S81.
16. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1295-304.
17. Boden SD, Balderston RA, Heller JG, et al. An AOA critical issue. Disc replacements: this time will we really cure low-back and neck pain? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:411-22.
18. Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1497-503.
19. Gillet P. The fate of the adjacent motion segments after lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:338-45.
20. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, et al. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004;29:1938-44.
21. Auerbach JD, Wills BP, McIntosh TC, et al. Evaluation of spinal kinematics following lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential fusion using in vivo fl uoroscopy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:527-36.
22. Auerbach JD, Jones KJ, Milby AH, et al. Segmental contribution toward total lumbar range of motion in disc replacement and fusions: a comparison of operative and adjacent levels. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2510-7.
23. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 1999;28:336-40.
24. Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Raghavan N, et al. The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion. Spine 1998;23:1785-92.
25. Lee CK, Langrana NA. Lumbosacral spinal fusion. A biomechanical study. Spine 1984;9:574-81.
26. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 1996;21:970-81.
27. Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K, et al. Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine 1998;23:1550-8.
28. Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine 1995;20:526-31.
29. Singh K, Phillips FM, Kuo E, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the effi cacy of postoperative continuous local anesthetic infusion at the iliac crest bone graft site after posterior spinal arthrodesis: a minimum of 4-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2790-6.
30. Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J, et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis versus spinal stenosis: does a slip matter? Comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:298-305.
31. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine (2nd ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott:1990.
32. Allen RT, Garfi n SR. The economics of minimally invasive spine surgery: the value perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S375-82.
33. Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S294-301.
34. Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA, et al. Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S302-11.
35. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2257-70.