Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

The efficacy and safety of decompression with interspinous fixation for lumbar spondylolisthesis when compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A pilot study

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is widely used to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis because it provides definitive decompression and fixation. Although it has several advantages, it has some disadvantages and risks, such as paraspinal muscle injury, potential intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, hardware failure, subsidence, and medical comorbidity. Lumbar decompressive bilateral laminectomy with interspinous fixation (DLISF) is less invasive and can be used on some patients with PLIF, but this has not been reported. To compare the efficacy and safety of DLISF in the treatment of low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with that of PLIF. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 81 patients with grade I spondylolisthesis, who had undergone PLIF or DLISF and were followed up for more than 1 year. Surgical outcomes, visual analog scale, radiologic outcomes, including Cobb angle and difference in body translation, and postoperative complications were assessed. Forty-one patients underwent PLIF, whereas 40 underwent DLISF. The operative times were 271.0 ± 57.2 and 150.6 ± 29.3 minutes for the PLIF and DLISF groups, respectively. The estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the PLIF group versus the DLISF group (290.7 ± 232.6 vs 122.2 ± 82.7 mL, P < .001). Body translation did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Overall pain improved during the 1-year follow-up when compared with baseline data. Medical complications were significantly lower in the DLISF group, whereas perioperative complications and hardware issues were higher in the PLIF group. The outcomes of DLISF, which is less invasive, were comparable to PLIF outcomes in patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis. As a salvage technique, DLISF may be a good option when compared with PLIF.

Biomechanical investigation of a customized interspinous spacer system in the treatment of degenerative disc diseases: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

A novel interspinous fixation system based on anatomical parameters and incorporating transfacetopedicular screws, was developed to treat degenerative disc diseases. The biomechanical characteristics of the novel system were evaluated using finite element analysis in comparison to other classical interspinous spacers.

METHODS

The L1-S1 lumbar spine finite element models were surgically implanted with the novel system, Coflex and DIAM devices at the L4/L5 segment to assess the range of motion, the pression distribution of intervertebral disc, the peak stresses on the spinous process and implant during various motions.

FINDINGS

Range of motions of the L4/L5 surgical segment were reduced by 29.13%, 61.27%, 77.35%, 33.33%, and the peak stresses of intervertebral disc were decreased by 36.82%, 67.31%, 73.00%, 69.57% for the novel system in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation when compared with the Coflex, and they were declined by 34.53%, 57.86%, 75.81%, 25.21%; 36.22%, 67.31%, 75.01%, 71.40% compared with DIAM. The maximum stresses of the spinous process were 29.93 MPa, 24.66 MPa, 14.45 MPa, 24.37 MPa in the novel system, and those of Coflex and DIAM were 165.3 MPa, 109 MPa, 84.79 MPa, 47.66 MPa and 52.59 MPa, 48.78 MPa, 50.27 MPa, 44.16 MPa during the same condition.

INTERPRETATION

Compared to other interspinous spacer devices, the novel interspinous fixation system demonstrated excellent stability, effectively distributing load on the intervertebral disc, and reducing the risk of spinous process fractures. The personalized design of the novel interspinous fixation system could be a viable option for treating degenerative disc diseases.

Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases

Background and objectives: The prevalence of degenerative lumbar spine diseases has increased. In addition to standard lumbar decompression and/or fusion techniques, implantation of interspinous process devices (IPDs) can provide clinical benefits in highly selected patients. However, changes in spinal structures after IPD implantation using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have rarely been discussed. This volumetric study aimed to evaluate the effect of IPD implantation on the intervertebral disc and foramen using three-dimensional assessment. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with lumbar degenerative disc diseases treated with IPD implantation and foraminotomy and/or discectomy between January 2016 and December 2019. The mean follow-up period was 13.6 months. The perioperative lumbar MRI data were processed for 3D-volumetric analysis. Clinical outcomes, including the Prolo scale and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and radiographic outcomes, such as the disc height, foraminal area, and translation, were analyzed. Results: Fifty patients were included in our study. At the one-year follow-up, the VAS and Prolo scale scores significantly improved (both p < 0.001). The disc height and foraminal area on radiographs also increased significantly, but with limited effects up to three months postoperatively. MRI revealed an increased postoperative disc height with a mean difference of 0.5 ± 0.1 mm (p < 0.001). Although the mean disc volume difference did not significantly increase, the mean foraminal volume difference was 0.4 ± 0.16 mm³ (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In select patients with degenerative disc diseases or lumbar spinal stenosis, the intervertebral foramen was enlarged, and disc loading was reduced after IPD implantation with decompression surgery. The 3D findings were compatible with the clinical benefits.

Interspinous Process Fixation Device Versus Extended Pedicle Screw Fixation for Symptomatic Adjacent Segment Disease: 3-Year Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of an interspinous process fixation device (IFD) with those of extended pedicle screw fixation (PSF) for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion.

METHODS

The data from 109 patients with ASD treated with IFD (n = 48) or extended PSF (n = 61) from January 2009 to January 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. The clinical outcomes were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The radiographic outcomes included the fusion rate, incidence of cage subsidence, and additional radiographic ASD.

RESULTS

The mean incision length, operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the IFD group (P < 0.001). Postoperative back and leg pain were relieved in both groups (P < 0.001). The mean preoperative VAS scores were 8.3 ± 1.3 and 8.5 ± 1.1 in the IFD and PSF groups and had improved to 2.8 ± 1.1 and 2.7 ± 1.2 after 36 months, respectively (P < 0.001). At 36 months postoperatively, 10 of the 56 patients (17.9%) in the PSF group had developed additional radiographic ASD compared with 2 of 44 patients (4.5%) in the IFD group.

CONCLUSION

Our results have demonstrated that in the treatment of symptomatic ASD, comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes can be achieved using IFD, which has a shorter skin incision, shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay than the extended PSF technique. Although not statistically significant, the IFD resulted in a lower ASD incidence compare with the PSF technique. Thus, IFD might be an alternative surgical method for symptomatic ASD after lumbar spine fusion.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Rigid Interspinous Process Fixation: A Learning Curve Analysis of a Surgeon Team's First 74 Cases

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that a significant learning curve may be associated with adopting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF). Accordingly, several hybrid TLIF techniques have been proposed as surrogates to the accepted BPSF technique, asserting that less/fewer fixation(s) or less disruptive fixation may decrease the learning curve while still maintaining the minimally disruptive benefits. TLIF with interspinous process fixation (ISPF) is one such surrogate procedure. However, despite perceived ease of adaptability given the favorable proximity of the spinous processes, no evidence exists demonstrating whether or not the technique may possess its own inherent learning curve. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intraoperative learning curve for one- and two-level TLIF + ISPF may exist for a single lead surgeon.

METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive patients who received one- or two-Level TLIF with rigid ISPF by a single lead surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. It was the first TLIF + ISPF case series for the lead surgeon. Intraoperative blood loss (EBL), hospitalization length-of-stay (LOS), fluoroscopy time, and postoperative complications were collected. EBL, LOS, and fluoroscopy time were modeled as a function of case number using multiple linear regression methods. A change point was included in each model to allow the trajectory of the outcomes to change during the duration of the case series. These change points were determined using profile likelihood methods. Models were fit using the maximum likelihood estimates for the change points. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the number of treated levels were included as covariates.

RESULTS

EBL, LOS, and fluoroscopy time did not significantly differ by age, sex, or BMI (p ≥ 0.12). Only EBL differed significantly by the number of levels (p = 0.026). The case number was not a significant predictor of EBL, LOS, or fluoroscopy time (p ≥ 0.21). At the time of data collection (mean time from surgery: 13.3 months), six patients had undergone revision due to interbody migration. No ISPF device complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Study outcomes support the ideal that TLIF + ISPF can be a readily adopted procedure without a significant intraoperative learning curve. However, the authors emphasize that further assessment of long-term healing outcomes is essential in fully characterizing both the efficacy and the indication learning curve for the TLIF + ISPF technique.