Interspinous process decompression is associated with a reduction in opioid analgesia in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

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.

Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis

INTRODUCTION

For individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), minimally invasive procedures such as an interspinous spacer device without decompression or fusion (ISD) or open surgery (i.e., open decompression or fusion) may relieve symptoms and improve functions when patients fail to respond to conservative therapies. This research compares longitudinal postoperative outcomes and rates of subsequent interventions between LSS patients treated with ISD and those with open decompression or fusion as their first surgical intervention.

METHODS

This retrospective, comparative claims analysis identified patients age ≥ 50 years with LSS diagnosis and with a qualifying procedure during 2017-2021 in the Medicare database which includes healthcare encounters in inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients were followed from the qualifying procedure until end of data availability. The outcomes assessed during the follow-up included subsequent surgical interventions, including subsequent fusion and lumbar spine surgeries, long-term complications, and short-term life-threatening events. Additionally, the costs to Medicare during a 3-year follow-up were calculated. Cox proportional hazards, logistic regression, and generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes and costs, adjusted for baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 400,685 patients who received a qualifying procedure were identified (mean age 71.5 years, 50.7% male). Compared to ISD patients, patients receiving open surgery (i.e., decompression and/or fusion) were more likely to have a subsequent fusion [hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.49 (1.17, 1.89)-2.54 (2.00, 3.23)] or other lumbar spine surgery [HR (CI): 3.05 (2.18, 4.27)-5.72 (4.08, 8.02)]. Short-term life-threatening events [odds ratio (CI): 2.42 (2.03, 2.88)-6.36 (5.33, 7.57)] and long-term complications [HR (CI): 1:31 (1.13, 1.52)-2.38 (2.05, 2.75)] were more likely among the open surgery cohorts. Adjusted mean index costs were lowest for decompression alone (US$7001) and highest for fusion alone ($33,868). ISD patients had significantly lower 1-year complication-related costs than all surgery cohorts and lower 3-year all-cause costs than fusion cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ISD resulted in lower risks of short- and long-term complications and lower long-term costs than open decompression and fusion surgeries as a first surgical intervention for LSS.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

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.

Jmjd3 Mediates Neuropathic Pain by Inducing Macrophage Infiltration and Activation in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Animal Model

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a major cause of chronic neuropathic back and/or leg pain. Recently, we demonstrated that a significant number of macrophages infiltrated into the cauda equina after compression injury, causing neuroinflammation, and consequently mediating neuropathic pain development and/or maintenance. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying macrophage infiltration and activation have not been elucidated. Here, we demonstrated the critical role of histone H3K27 demethylase Jmjd3 in blood-nerve barrier dysfunction following macrophage infiltration and activation in LSS rats. The LSS rat model was induced by cauda equina compression using a silicone block within the epidural spaces of the L5-L6 vertebrae with neuropathic pain developing 4 weeks after compression. We found that Jmjd3 was induced in the blood vessels and infiltrated macrophages in a rat model of neuropathic pain. The blood-nerve barrier permeability in the cauda equina was increased after compression and significantly attenuated by the Jmjd3 demethylase inhibitor, GSK-J4. GSK-J4 also inhibited the expression and activation of MMP-2 and MMP-9 and significantly alleviated the loss of tight junction proteins and macrophage infiltration. Furthermore, the activation of a macrophage cell line, RAW 264.7, by LPS was significantly alleviated by GSK-J4. Finally, GSK-J4 and a potential Jmjd3 inhibitor, gallic acid, significantly inhibited mechanical allodynia in LSS rats. Thus, our findings suggest that Jmjd3 mediates neuropathic pain development and maintenance by inducing macrophage infiltration and activation after cauda equina compression and thus may serve as a potential therapeutic target for LSS-induced neuropathic pain.

A Comprehensive Review of Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain: Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Disc Disease-MILD Percutaneous Image Guided Lumbar Decompression, Vertiflex Interspinous Spacer, MinuteMan G3 Interspinous-Interlaminar Fusion

Spinal stenosis is the compression of nerve roots by bone or soft tissue secondary to the narrowing of the spinal canal, lateral recesses, or intervertebral foramina. Spinal stenosis may have acquired or congenital origins. Most cases are acquired and caused by hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum, enlarged osteophytes, degenerative arthritis, disk herniations, and various systemic illnesses. The ligamentum flavum (LF) is a highly specialized elastic ligament that connects the laminae of the spine and fuses them to the facet joint capsules. There are a number of treatment options available for spinal stenosis. Implants and surgical interventions have grown in popularity recently, and a number of these have been shown to have varying efficacy, including the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD^®), Vertiflex^®, Coflex^® Interlaminar Stabilization, and MinuteMan G3^® procedures. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD^®) is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure to treat spinal stenosis related to hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. The Superion^® Interspinous Spacer, also known as Vertiflex^®, is a titanium implant that is delivered percutaneously to relieve back pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The MinuteMan^® is a minimally invasive, interspinous-interlaminar fusion device planned for the temporary fixation of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine, which eventually results in bony fusion. Based on our review of the available current scientific literature, the novel interventions for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, such as the MILD^® procedure and the Superion^® interspinous spacer, generally appear to be safe and effective. There is a possibility in the future that these interventions could disrupt current treatment algorithms for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Novel Application of Erector Spinae Plane Block to Interspinous Spacer Placement

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a fascial plane block that targets the dorsal and ventral branches of the primary dorsal root ganglion. We report a case of a 76-year-old woman who presented for percutaneous posterior interspinous decompression spacer at the L3-L4 level in the setting of neurogenic claudication from severe spinal stenosis. We describe the novel performance of bilateral ESPBs under ultrasound guidance for postprocedural analgesia. Throughout the recovery period, the patient experienced sustained pain relief. ESPB may be a useful adjunct for periprocedural analgesia and recovery in patients undergoing interspinous spacer placements.

Biomechanics and Mechanism of Action of Indirect Lumbar Decompression and the Evolution of a Stand-alone Spinous Process Spacer

Objective

Objective Interspinous process spacers are used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by preventing extension at the implanted level and reducing claudication, which is a common symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis. This review assessed the current safety and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatments and the biomechanical effects of spinal position, range of motion, and the use of interspinous process spacers.

Method

Method EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the safety and performance of nonsurgical treatment, including physical therapy and pharmacological treatment, and surgical treatment, including direct and indirect lumbar decompression treatment. Results were supplemented with manual searches to include studies reporting on the use of interspinous process spacers and the review of biomechanical testing performed on the Superion device.

Results

Results The effects of spinal position in extension and flexion have been shown to have an impact in the variation in dimensions of the spinal canal and foramina areas. Overall studies have shown that spinal positions from flexion to extension reduce the spinal canal and foramina dimensions and increase ligamentum flavum thickness. Biomechanical test data have shown that the Superion device resists extension and reduces angular movement at the implantation level and provides significant segmental stability.

Conclusions

Conclusions Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive, low-risk procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, which has been shown to have a low safety profile by maintaining sagittal alignment, limiting the potential for device dislodgment or migration, and to preserve mobility and structural elements.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain. Traditionally, treatment options have consisted of conservative measures such as physical therapy, medication management, epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, or surgery. There exists a treatment gap for patients failing conservative measures who are not candidates for surgery. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) and interspinous process device (IPD) with Superion® represent minimally invasive novel treatment options that may help fill this gap in management. We performed a literature review to separately evaluate these procedures and assess the effectiveness and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence for MILD and Superion has been continuously debated. Overall, it is considered that while the procedures are safe, there is only modest evidence for effectiveness. For both procedures, we have reviewed 13 studies. Based on the available evidence, MILD and Superion are safe and modestly effective minimally invasive procedures for patients with symptomatic LSS. It is our recommendation that these procedures may be incorporated as part of the continuum of treatment options for patients meeting clinical criteria.

A Review of Emerging Evidence for Utilization of a Percutaneous Interspinous Process Decompression Device to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Adjacent-Segment Degeneration

OBJECTIVE

Postlaminectomy syndrome diagnoses secondary to adjacent segment degeneration are a substantial and rising cause of morbidity in the United States. Emerging spinal cord neuromodulation technologies have produced successful outcomes for postlaminectomy neuropathic pain but are less effective in treating neurogenic claudication secondary to recurrent lumbar stenosis. Percutaneous interspinous process decompression systems can be used as a salvage treatment modality for persistent structural neurogenic claudication in postlaminectomy syndrome or after spinal cord stimulator implantation.

METHODS

This paper is a review of emerging evidence for efficacious utilization of percutaneous interspinous process decompression.

RESULTS

A recent pragmatic trial of subjects who underwent percutaneous interspinous process decompression for lumbar stenosis with intermittent neurogenic claudication reported that 63% (26/41) maintained minimal clinically important improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain, 61% (25/41) in VAS back pain, 78% (32/41) in function objective values, and 88% (36/41) reported satisfaction with treatment at 12 months postop. All subjects in a small case series of seven individuals with postlaminectomy adjacent-segment disease reported postoperative satisfaction scores of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale and were also able to decrease or wean completely off controlled pain medications. In another study, there was a significant decrease in average leg pain (60% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) and axial low back pain (58% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) in patients who underwent one- or two-level percutaneous interspinous process decompression as a rescue treatment for reemerging neurogenic claudication after spinal cord stimulator implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The spine often is a focus of progressive disease. Furthermore, mechanical changes associated with spinal instrumentation can lead to additional disease at adjacent levels. Many individuals will present with symptomatic neurogenic claudication recalcitrant to multimodal management strategies, including even the most sophisticated neuromodulation technologies. Implementation of salvage percutaneous interspinus process decompression implantation in cases of adjacent segment degeneration or incomplete spinal cord stimulation can decompress structural causes of neurogenic claudication while sparing the patient from more invasive surgical reoperation techniques.

Interspinous Process Decompression With The Superion® Spacer For Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Real-World Experience From A Device Registry

Background

Interspinous process decompression (IPD) with stand-alone spacers has demonstrated excellent long-term clinical benefit for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

Methods

IPD used the Superion^® Indirect Decompression System (Vertiflex, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Perioperative and clinical data were captured via a registry for patients treated with IPD for LSS with intermittent neurogenic claudication. Three-hundred sixteen physicians at 86 clinical sites in the US participated. Patient data were captured from in-person interviews and a phone survey. Outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, procedural time, leg and back pain severity (100 mm VAS), patient satisfaction and treatment approval at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months.

Results

The mean age of registry patients was 73.0 ± 9.1 years of which 54% were female. Mean leg pain severity decreased from 76.6 ± 22.4 mm preoperatively to 30.4 ± 34.6 mm at 12 months, reflecting an overall 60% improvement. Corresponding responder rates were 64% (484 of 751), 72% (1,097 of 1,523) and 75% (317 of 423) at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Back pain severity improved from 76.8 ± 22.2 mm preoperatively to 39.9 ± 32.3 mm at 12 months (48% improvement); 12-month responder rate of 67% (297 of 441). For patient satisfaction at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months, 89%, 80%, and 80% were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their treatment and 90%, 75%, and 75% would definitely or probably undergo the same treatment again. In the phone survey, the rate of revision was 3.6% (51 of 1,426).

Conclusion

These registry findings support the clinical adoption of minimally invasive IPD in patients with neurogenic claudication associated with LSS.

Toward a cure for lumbar spinal stenosis: The potential of interspinous process decompression

There is a growing impetus to treat aging as a disease in the quest to significantly extend the human life span through cellular regeneration methods. This approach, while promising, overlooks the fact that the evolutionary adaptation to bipedalism puts the human body in a distinctively vulnerable biomechanical and functional position. Orthograde human posture places unusually-high axial compressive loads on the weight-bearing joints of the skeleton, resulting in arthritic deterioration with aging. The effects are particularly robust in the lumbar spine were age-related degeneration, most commonly lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), is ubiquitous among the elderly. It is postulated that re-establishing a favorable mechanical environment via interventions that unload the affected spinal joint complex may mitigate and potentially reverse the structural damage that is the cardinal pathoanatomical feature of this disease. The hypothesis of this paper is that a minimally-invasive surgical procedure, interspinous process decompression (IPD), which utilizes a stand-alone intervertebral spacer, effectively unloads the diseased spinal motion segment providing a healthy micro-environment to reverse and repair age-related and genetic deterioration of the spinal motion segment. Several lines of supporting evidence are provided from long-term follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of IPD safety and effectiveness of the Superion® device including clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, opioid analgesic usage and advanced imaging utilization. All of these outcomes show uniquely-favorable trends with time that imply that the benefits of IPD are structural. The compendium of evidence suggests that IPD offers both a durable palliative effect due to direct blocking of back extension and a disease-modifying effect due to unloading of the spinal joint complex.