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
[11]  
Bae H(2006)Quality of life of lumbar stenosis-treated patients in whom the X STOP interspinous device was implanted J Neurosurg Spine 5 500-840
[12]  
Davis RJ(2009)Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J 18 830-E1351
[13]  
Errico TJ(2011)Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials Spine 36 E1335-2265S
[14]  
Bae H(1994)Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993 Spine 19 2256S-2160
[15]  
Deyo RA(2014)A prospective randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine with the Wallis ligament Eur Spine J 23 2156-2052
[16]  
Mirza SK(2013)Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial BMJ 347 f6415-939
[17]  
Martin BI(1996)Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication Spine 21 2046-91
[18]  
Furlan AD(2011)Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis Spine J 11 933-174
[19]  
Pennick V(2002)The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis Spine 27 84-341
[20]  
Bombardier C(2014)Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up Clin Neurol Neurosurg 124 166-289