Minimally invasive decompression versus x-stop in lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized controlled multicenter study

Spine

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 77-85

  Lønne, Greger ^a,b,c   Johnsen, Lars Gunnar ^b,c   Rossvoll, Ivar ^b,c   Andresen, Hege ^b,c   Storheim, Kjersti ^d   Zwart, John Anker ^d   Nygaard, Øystein P ^b,c  

^a INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

lumbar spinal stenosis; minimally invasive decompression; multicenter study; neurogenic intermittent claudication; numerical rating scale 11; Oswestry Disability Index; randomized controlled trail; spine surgery; X Stop; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; CAUDA EQUINA SYNDROME; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; EUROQOL 5D; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEMATOMA; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; LAMINECTOMY; LEG PAIN; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE DECOMPRESSION; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NUMERICAL RATING SCALE 11; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMATOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; REOPERATION; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SPINAL SPACER; SPINE FRACTURE; SPINE STABILIZATION; SURGICAL PATIENT; SURGICAL RISK; URINE RETENTION; ZURICH CLAUDICATION QUESTIONNAIRE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAMINECTOMY; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84921395804     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000691     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010; 303: 1259-65. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.338.
2. Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2011; 36: E1335-51. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820c97b1.
3. Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, et al. Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 129-41. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129.
4. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X-Stop interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J 2004; 13: 22-31. doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0581-4.
5. Kondrashov DG, Hannibal M, Hsu KY, et al. Interspinous process decompression with the X-Stop device for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 4-year follow-up study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19: 323-7. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000211294.67508.3b.
6. Strömqvist BH, Berg S, Gerdhem P, et al. X-Stop versus decompres-sive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine 2013; 38: 1436-42. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828ba413.
7. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of microdecompression and laminectomy for central lumbar spinal stenosis: study protocol for an observational study. BMJ Open 2014; 4: e004651. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004651.
8. Popov V, Anderson DG. Minimal invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Adv Orthop 2012; 2012: 1-5. doi:10.1155/2012/645321.
9. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, et al. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21: 796-803.
10. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 2000; 25: 2940-52; discussion 2952.
11. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 2003; 35: 241-7.
12. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom National Questionnaire Survey. BMJ 1998; 316: 736-41. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7133.736.
13. Solberg TK, Olsen J-A, Ingebrigtsen T, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 1000-7. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0898-2.
14. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 1073-93.
15. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 2005; 30: 1351-8.
16. Tuschel A, Chavanne A, Eder C, et al. Implant survival analysis and failure modes of the X-Stop Interspinous Distraction Device. Spine 2013; 38: 1826-31. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820b86e1.
17. Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, et al. Two-year results of interspi-nous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 823-9. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0967-z.
18. Patil S, Burton M, Storey C, et al. Evaluation of Interspinous Process Distraction Device (X-Stop) in a representative patient cohort. WNEU 2013; 80: 213-7. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.03.034.
19. Barbagallo GMV, Olindo G, Corbino L, et al. Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2009; 65: 111-9; discussion 119-20. doi:10.1227/01. NEU.0000346254.07116.31.
20. Lauryssen C. Appropriate selection of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis for interspinous process decompression with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 22: E5.
21. Duncan JW, Bailey RA. Cauda equina syndrome following decompression for spinal stenosis. Global Spine J 2011; 1: 15-8.
22. Thomé C, Börm W, Meyer F. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: current strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105: 373-9. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2008.0373.
23. Fu Y-S, Zeng B-F, Xu J-G. Long-term outcomes of two different decompressive techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2008; 33: 514-8. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181657dde.
24. Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic clau-dication by interspinous decompression: application of the X-Stop device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 463-71. doi:10.3171/spi.2006.4.6.463.
25. Hislop H, Montgomery JH, Connolly B, et al. Daniels and Worthingham's Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination. 8th ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2007.