Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

被引:0
作者
Mao Li
Huilin Yang
Genlin Wang
机构
[1] The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University,Department of Orthopaedics Surgery
来源
Neurosurgical Review | 2017年 / 40卷
关键词
Interspinous process devices; Neurogenic intermittent claudication; Spinal stenosis; Systematic review;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aim of this study is to compare interspinous process device (IPD) implantation to other methods for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). PubMed and Cochrane library were searched in December 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPD implantation and nonoperative therapy or laminectomy with/without spinal fusion for the treatment of NIC due to spinal stenosis or low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted as appropriate. Eleven articles (eight RCTs) were included, with two having high risk of bias. These RCTs were divided into three groups according to control cohort interventions: IPD implantation was compared with nonoperative treatment (group 1, n = 3), laminectomy (group 2, n = 3), and laminectomy associated with instrumented spinal fusion (group 3, n = 2). Group 1 studies reported better Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) scores for the IPD group. In group 2, two studies reported comparable ZCQ scores and one revealed comparable visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores; pooled analysis showed a higher reoperation rate in patients treated with IPD. In group 3, one study found that more patients in IPD group gained more than 25 % improvement in VAS and ODI, with lower complication rate; the other reported better ZCQ scores in the IPD group and comparable complication and reoperation rates. IPD implantation is more effective than the other methods, but not superior to laminectomy in treating NIC.
引用
收藏
页码:529 / 536
页数:7
相关论文
共 93 条
[1]  
Anderson PA(2006)Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis J Neurosurg Spine 4 463-471
[2]  
Tribus CB(2010)Dynamic stabilization using X-stop versus transpedicular screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis; comparative study of the clinical outcome Neurosurg Q 20 165-169
[3]  
Kitchel SH(2012)Surgical treatment of the spinal stenosis with an interspinous distraction device: do we really restore the foraminal height? Turk Neurosurg 22 50-54
[4]  
Azzazi A(2013)Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article J Neurosurg Spine 19 174-184
[5]  
Elhawary Y(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 1529-1539
[6]  
Celik H(2010)Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults JAMA 303 1259-1265
[7]  
Derincek A(2009)2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group Spine 34 1929-1941
[8]  
Koksal I(2014)Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future Biomed Res Int 2014 975052-2320
[9]  
Davis R(2005)Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis: updated Cochrane Review Spine 30 2312-400
[10]  
Auerbach JD(2011)Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability Int Orthop 35 395-507