Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2018; 79(02): 139-144
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604280
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life in Elderly Patients Treated with Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Massimo Miscusi
1   NESMOS Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Sokol Trungu
2   NESMOS Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Stefano Forcato
1   NESMOS Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Alessandro Ramieri
3   Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Filippo Maria Polli
4   Department of Neurosurgery, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Antonino Raco
2   NESMOS Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 September 2016

24 May 2017

Publication Date:
27 July 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and Objective Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition that occurs in the spine with increasing age. Clinically, LSS causes a progressive reduction in walking autonomy, resulting in a poor quality of life and impaired functional capacity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and quality of life of elderly patients presenting with LSS and associated comorbidities after a 5-year follow-up who were treated with an interspinous process device (IPD).

Material and Methods Sixty patients > 75 years of age presenting with symptomatic degenerative LSS were included. All were treated with an IPD under local anesthesia. American Society of Anesthesiology score, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Short Form 36 were evaluated pre- and postoperatively and at the follow-up visit each year for 5 years.

Results The mean surgery time while under local anesthesia was 20 minutes. Forty-eight patients were followed for 5 years. Significant clinical improvements in all outcome scores (p < 0.05) both postoperatively or at follow-up were found.

Conclusions IPD seems to be an effective and safe treatment for LSS in elderly patients with general comorbidities. In our study, all followed up patients had a meaningful improvement of their quality of life even at 5 years after surgery.

Keywords

interspinous device - lumbar stenosis - minimally invasive surgery - elderly patients - neurogenic claudication
 

  • References

  • 1 Amundsen T, Weber H, Lilleås F, Nordal HJ, Abdelnoor M, Magnaes B. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinical and radiologic features. Spine 1995; 20 (10) 1178-1186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Evans JG. Neurogenic intermittent claudication. BMJ 1964; 2 (5415): 985-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine 1996; 21 (17) 2046-2052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 de Graaf I, Prak A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Thomas S, Peul W, Koes B. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine 2006; 31 (10) 1168-1176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Simotas AC. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (384) 153-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD. , et al; SPORT Investigators. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (08) 794-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 2010; 35 (14) 1329-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Malmivaara A, Slätis P, Heliövaara M. , et al; Finnish Lumbar Spinal Research Group. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine 2007; 32 (01) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chang Y, Singer DE, Wu YA, Keller RB, Atlas SJ. The effect of surgical and nonsurgical treatment on longitudinal outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis over 10 years. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (05) 785-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21 (01) 92-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine 2011; 36 (20) E1335-E1351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE. Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the Maine lumbar spine study. Spine 2005; 30 (08) 936-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (08) 1049-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wiseman CM, Lindsey DP, Fredrick AD, Yerby SA. The effect of an interspinous process implant on facet loading during extension. Spine 2005; 30 (08) 903-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M, Smith FW, Wardlaw D. Influence of X Stop on neural foramina and spinal canal area in spinal stenosis. Spine 2006; 31 (25) 2958-2962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moojen WA, Arts MP, Brand R, Koes BW, Peul WC. The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11 (11) 100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Strömqvist BH, Berg S, Gerdhem P. , et al. X-stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine 2013; 38 (17) 1436-1442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Beyer F, Yagdiran A, Neu P, Kaulhausen T, Eysel P, Sobottke R. Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (09) 2015-2021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC. , et al; Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2013; 347: f6415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21 (07) 796-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008; 8 (06) 968-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A. 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 2002; 27 (01) 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brussee P, Hauth J, Donk RD, Verbeek AL, Bartels RH. Self-rated evaluation of outcome of the implantation of interspinous process distraction (X-Stop) for neurogenic claudication. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (02) 200-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Carragee EJ. The increasing morbidity of elective spinal stenosis surgery: is it necessary?. JAMA 2010; 303 (13) 1309-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010; 303 (13) 1259-1265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fu KM, Smith JS, Polly Jr DW. , et al; Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Correlation of higher preoperative American Society of Anesthesiology grade and increased morbidity and mortality rates in patients undergoing spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14 (04) 470-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fu KM, Smith JS, Polly Jr DW. , et al. Morbidity and mortality in the surgical treatment of 10,329 adults with degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12 (05) 443-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ, Ciol MA. Morbidity and mortality in association with operations on the lumbar spine. The influence of age, diagnosis, and procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74 (04) 536-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rosen DS, O'Toole JE, Eichholz KM. , et al. Minimally invasive lumbar spinal decompression in the elderly: outcomes of 50 patients aged 75 years and older. Neurosurgery 2007; 60 (03) 503-509 ; discussion 509–510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 De Rojas JO, Syre P, Welch WC. Regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia for surgery on the lumbar spine: a review of the modern literature. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014; 119: 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Skidmore G, Ackerman SJ, Bergin C. , et al. Cost-effectiveness of the X-STOP® interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2011; 36 (05) E345-E356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine 2003; 28 (19) 2192-2197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schulte LM, O'Brien JR, Matteini LE, Yu WD. Change in sagittal balance with placement of an interspinous spacer. Spine 2011; 36 (20) E1302-E1305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 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 (12) 1351-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Hartjen CA. , et al. Quality of life of lumbar stenosis-treated patients in whom the X STOP interspinous device was implanted. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 5 (06) 500-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, Simons P. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (06) 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Barbagallo GM, Olindo G, Corbino L, Albanese V. 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 (01) 111-119 ; discussion 119–120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (06) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tamburrelli FC, Proietti L, Logroscino CA. Critical analysis of lumbar interspinous devices failures: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 (Suppl. 01) S27-S35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kim DH, Tantorski M, Shaw J. , et al. Occult spinous process fractures associated with interspinous process spacers. Spine 2011; 36 (16) E1080-E1085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Siewe J, Selbeck M, Koy T. , et al. Indications and contraindications: interspinous process decompression devices in lumbar spine surgery. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2015; 76 (01) 1-7
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar