Is There Still a Role for Interspinous Spacers in the Management of Neurogenic Claudication?

Bone Substitute Options for Spine Fusion in Patients With Spine Trauma-Part I: Fusion Biology, Autografts, Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrix, and Ceramics

Spinal trauma accounts for a large portion of injuries to the spine area, particularly as societies are entering an era of aging populations. Consequently, spine fractures accompanied by osteoporosis are becoming more prevalent. Achieving successful fusion surgery in patients with spine fractures associated with osteoporosis is even more challenging. Pseudarthrosis in the spine does not yield clinically favorable results; however, considerable effort has been made to achieve successful fusion, and the advancement of bone graft substitutes has been particularly crucial in this regard. Autograft bone is considered the best fusion material but is limited in use due to the quantity that can be harvested during surgery and associated complications. Accordingly, various bone graft substitutes are currently being used, although no specific guidelines are available and this mainly depends on the surgeon's choice. Therefore, the purpose of this review, across part I/II, is to summarize bone graft substitutes commonly used in spine surgery for spine fusion in patients with spine trauma and to update the latest knowledge on the role of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

Comparison of Adverse Outcomes Following Placement of Superion Interspinous Spacer Device Versus Laminectomy and Laminotomy

BACKGROUND

Current evidence suggests placement of the Superion interspinous spacer (SISS) device compared with laminectomy or laminotomy surgery offers an effective, less invasive treatment option for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. Both SISS placement and laminectomy or laminotomy have risks of complications and a direct comparison of complications between the 2 procedures has not been previously studied. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term complications of the SISS with laminectomy or laminotomy and highlight device-specific long-term outcomes with SISS.

METHODS

Via retrospective review, 189 patients who received lumbar level SISSs were compared with 378 matched controls who underwent primary lumbar spine laminectomy or laminotomy; data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Complications analyzed included rates of wound infection, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, urinary tract infection, sepsis, septic shock, cardiac arrest, death, and reoperation within 30 days of index surgery. Differences between groups were analyzed using the χ²test. Device-specific complication (DSC) rates included device malfunction or misplacement (DM), device explantation (DE), spinous process fracture (SPF), and subsequent spinal surgery (SSS).

RESULTS

No differences in demographics or comorbidities existed between groups. There was no significant difference in rates of complications between groups. A total of 44.4% of patients in the SISS group experienced DSCs with 11.1% of patients experiencing DM, 21.1% experiencing an SPF, 20.1% requiring DE, and 24.3% requiring SSS. Having at least 1 DSC significantly increased odds of SSS, odds ratio >120, P < .0001.

CONCLUSION

Rates of 30-day complications in the SISS group were not significantly different from patients undergoing laminectomy or laminotomy. Rates of 2-year DSC within SISS and cumulative risk associated with these complications should be considered further as they likely represent need for additional procedures for patients and substantial cost to the healthcare system.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Having no differences in adverse events between laminectomies or laminotomies and SISS plus evidence of substantial device-specific long-term adverse outcomes and reoperation should be given consideration when deciding on surgical intervention of 1-2 level lumbar spinal stenosis.

MRI evaluation of dural sac enlargement by interspinous process spacers in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: Does it play a role in the long term?

BACKGROUND

To investigate dural sac enlargements and spinal alignments in patients who underwent indirect decompression with interspinous spacers.

METHODS

The subjects were 20 patients who underwent indirect decompression using an interspinous spacer (X-STOP) without laminectomy. Of these 20 patients, 1 patient underwent implant removal surgery 1 month after X-STOP surgery and two patients dropped out. Ultimately, 17 patients were included in this study. MRI and X-ray images were investigated before surgery, 1 week after surgery, 3 months after surgery, and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

On MRI, the mean cross-sectional areas of the dural sac were 52.7 mm² before surgery, 73.2 mm² 1 week after surgery, 62.4 mm² 3 months after surgery, and 58.3 mm² 2 years after surgery. There was a significant 37% increase at 1 week postoperatively compared with that before surgery, but there were no significant differences between 3 months postoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The disc angle in an extension posture was significantly decreased at 1 week after surgery compared with that before surgery, but there were no significant differences between before surgery, 3 months after surgery, and 2 years after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The interspinous process spacer increased the dural sac area by 37% 1 week after surgery, but the enlargement was not maintained at 3 months or 2 years after surgery. The use of interspinous process spacers produced an enlargement of the dural sac by limiting extension of the stenotic level only. However, its effect diminished 2 years after surgery.

Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius™ PerCLID™) on spinal canal area

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect on the spinal canal at the treated and adjacent level(s), in patients treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with percutaneous interspinous process device (IPD) Aperius™ or open decompressive surgery (ODS), using axial loading of the spine during MRI (alMRI).

MATERIALS

Nineteen LSS patients (mean age 67 years, range 49-78) treated with IPDs in 29 spine levels and 13 LSS patients (mean age 63 years, range 46-76) operated with ODS in 22 spine levels were examined with alMRI pre- and 3 months postoperatively. Radiological effects were evaluated by measuring the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) and by morphological grading of nerve root affection.

RESULTS

For the IPD group, no DSCSA increase was observed at the operated level (p = 0.42); however, a decrease was observed in adjacent levels (p = 0.05). No effect was seen regarding morphological grading (operated level: p = 0.71/adjacent level: p = 0.94). For the ODS group, beneficial effects were seen for the operated level, both regarding DSCSA (p < 0.001) and for morphological grading (p < 0.0001). No changes were seen for adjacent levels (DSCSA; p = 0.47/morphological grading: p = 0.95). Postoperatively, a significant difference between the groups existed at the operated level regarding both evaluated parameters (p < 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

With the spine imaged in an axial loaded position, no significant radiological effects of an IPD could be detected postoperatively at the treated level, while increased DSCSA was displayed for the ODS group. In addition, reduced DSCSA in adjacent levels was detected for the IPD group. Thus, the beneficial effects of IPD implants on the spinal canal must be questioned. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Neurogenic Claudication: a Review of Current Understanding and Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an aging population and increased prevalence of the disease, we set out to evaluate the validity of current diagnostic criteria for neurogenic claudication as well as the efficacy of the treatment options for the main cause, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) were most efficacious when the injectate is a steroid combined with lidocaine or lidocaine only. There are promising results regarding the efficacy of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure as well as interspinous process spacers (IPS) compared to surgical alternatives. Spinal cord stimulators are gaining ground as an effective alternative to surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis that is not responsive to conservative measures or epidural injections. We found that there continues to be a lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria, management, and treatment options for patients with LSS. The Delphi consensus is the most current recommendation to assist clinicians with making the diagnosis. Physical therapy, NSAIDs, gabapentin, and other conservative therapy measures are unproven in providing long-lasting relief. In patients with radicular symptoms, an ESI may be indicated when a combination of lidocaine with steroids is used or using lidocaine alone. In addition, there is not enough high-quality evidence to make a recommendation regarding the use of MILD versus interspinous spacers for neurogenic claudication. There remains a need for high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of different conservative treatments, interventional procedures, and surgical outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication in LSS.