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

Decompression Alone Versus Interspinous/Interlaminar Device Placement for Degenerative Lumbar Pathologies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Interspinous devices (ISDs) and interlaminar devices (ILDs) are marketed as alternatives to conventional surgery for degenerative lumbar conditions; comparisons with decompression alone are limited. The present study reviews the extant literature comparing the cost and effectiveness of ISDs/ILDs with decompression alone.

METHODS

Articles comparing decompression alone with ISD/ILD were identified; outcomes of interest included general and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, perioperative complications, and total treatment costs. Outcomes were analyzed at <6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and last follow-up. Analyses were performed using random effects modeling.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the final analysis. ILD/ISD showed greater leg pain improvement at 3 months (mean difference, -1.43; 95% confidence interval, [-1.78, -1.07]; P < 0.001), 6 months (-0.89; [-1.55, -0.24]; P = 0.008), and 12 months (-0.97; [-1.25, -0.68]; P < 0.001), but not 2 years (P = 0.22) or last follow-up (P = 0.09). Back pain improvement was better after ISD/ILD only at 1 year (-0.87; [-1.62, -0.13]; P = 0.02). Short-Form 36 physical component scores or Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) symptom severity scores did not differ between the groups. ZCQ physical function scores improved more after decompression alone at 6 months (0.35; [0.07, 0.63]; P = 0.01) and 12 months (0.23; [0.00, 0.46]; P = 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQoL 5 dimensions scores favored ILD/ISD at all time points except 6 months (P = 0.07). Reoperations (odds ratio, 1.75; [1.23, 2.48]; P = 0.002) and total care costs (standardized mean difference, 1.19; [0.62, 1.77]; P < 0.001) were higher in the ILD/ISD group; complications did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported outcomes are similar after decompression alone and ILD/ISD; the observed differences do not reach accepted minimum clinically important difference thresholds. ISD/ILDs have higher associated costs and reoperation rates, suggesting current evidence does not support ILD/ISDs as a cost-effective alternative to decompression alone.

Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) typically begins with conservative care and progresses to minimally invasive procedures, including interspinous spacer without decompression or fusion (ISD) or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). This study examined safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures among LSS patients receiving an ISD versus MILD as the first surgical intervention.

METHODS

100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files were used to identify patients with an ISD or MILD (first procedure=index date) from 2017 to 2021. ISD and MILD patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching based on demographics and clinical characteristics. Safety outcomes and subsequent spinal procedures were captured from index date until end of follow-up. Cox models were used to analyze rates of subsequent surgical interventions, LSS-related interventions, open decompression, fusion, ISD, and MILD. Cox models were used to assess postoperative complications during follow-up and logistic regression to analyze life-threatening complications within 30 days of index procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 ISD and 5499 MILD patients were identified. After matching, 3614 from each group were included in the analysis (mean age=74 years, mean follow-up=20.0 months). The risk of undergoing any intervention, LSS-related intervention, open decompression, and MILD were 21%, 28%, 21%, and 81% lower among ISD compared with MILD patients. Multivariate analyses showed no significant differences in the risk of undergoing fusion or ISD, experiencing postoperative complications, or life-threatening complications (all p≥0.241) between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed ISD and MILD procedures have an equivalent safety profile. However, ISDs demonstrated lower rates of open decompression and MILD.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A 2-year Medicare Claims Benchmark Study

OBJECTIVE

This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries receiving percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure and a control group of patients receiving interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with LSS with NC and treated with either the mild procedure or a spacer were identified in the Medicare claims database. The incidence of harms, the rate of subsequent interventions, and the overall combined rate of harms and subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up after the index procedure were compared between the two groups and assessed for statistical significance with p = 0.05.

RESULTS

The study included 2229 patients in the mild group and 3401 patients who were implanted with interspinous spacers. The rate of harms for those treated with the mild procedure was less than half that of patients implanted with a spacer (5.6% vs. 12.1%, respectively; p < 0.0001) during 2-year follow-up. The rate of subsequent interventions was not significantly different between the two groups (24.9% and 26.1% for the mild and spacer groups, respectively; p = 0.7679). The total rate of harms and subsequent interventions for mild was found to be noninferior to spacers (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive study of real-world Medicare claims data demonstrated a significantly lower rate of harms for the mild procedure compared to interspinous spacers for patients diagnosed with LSS with NC, and a similar rate of subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up.

Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the biomechanical differences between Coflex and X-STOP devices by finite element analysis.

METHODS

Based on the normal lumbar CT images from a healthy adult volunteer, four finite element models including the healthy lumbar segment model, the mild degenerated lumbar segment model, a Coflex fixed lumbar segment model and X-STOP fixed lumbar segment model were constructed. A simulation analysis under the conditions of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation was performed to compare range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure, the facet joint force, the maximum Von Mises stress and the peak facet contact forces, between Coflex and X-STOP devices.

RESULTS

Compared to the mild degenerated lumbar segment model at surgical level L4-L5, Coflex and X-STOP could reduce ROM in extension by 98.34% and 95.86%, respectively, decrease peak stress of intervertebral discs in extension by 59.4% and 66.17%, respectively, and release peak force of facet joint in extension by 97.09% and 95.42%, respectively. Both devices had no significant impact on adjacent levels. The maximum Von Mises stress in Coflex device was 637.56 Mpa in flexion, 528.86 Mpa in extension, while the maximum Von Mises stress in X-STOP device was 476.65 Mpa at extension position. The peak facet contact forces of Coflex and X-STOP devices appeared in extension and were 19.76 Mpa and 49.28 Mpa, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Coflex and X-STOP devices can effectively decrease the ROM and intradiscal pressure in extension, without affecting the adjacent levels.

Neurosurgical Management of Interspinous Device Complications: A Case Series

Background

Best practice guidelines for treating lumbar stenosis include a multidisciplinary approach, ranging from conservative management with physical therapy, medication, and epidural steroid injections to surgical decompression with or without instrumentation. Marketed as an outpatient alternative to a traditional lumbar decompression, interspinous process devices (IPDs) have gained popularity as a minimally invasive stabilization procedure. IPDs have been embraced by non-surgical providers, including physiatrists and anesthesia interventional pain specialists. In the interest of patient safety, it is imperative to formally profile its safety and identify its role in the treatment paradigm for lumbar stenosis.

Case Description

We carried out a retrospective review at our institution of neurosurgical consultations for patients with hardware complications following the interspinous device placement procedure. Eight cases within a 3-year period were identified, and patient characteristics and management are illustrated. The series describes the migration of hardware, spinous process fracture, and worsening post-procedural back pain.

Conclusions

IPD placement carries procedural risk and requires a careful pre-operative evaluation of patient imaging and surgical candidacy. We recommend neurosurgical consultation and supervision for higher-risk IPD cases.