Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(6):763-9. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1100071. Epub 2015 Oct 21.

Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Author information

1
a Neurosurgical Spine Institute , Lakeway , TX 78738 , USA.
2
b Orange County Neurosurgical Associates , Laguna Hills , CA 92653 , USA.
3
c Tucson Orthopaedic Institute , Tucson , AZ 85712 , USA.
4
d Upstate Bone and Joint Center , East Syracuse , NY 13057 , USA.
5
e Rush University Medical Center , Chicago , IL 60612 , USA.
6
f Independent Scholar , San Francisco , CA 94115 , USA.
7
g Chicago Back Institute , Chicago , IL 60625 , USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the two-year clinical outcomes of a prospective, randomized controlled trial of an FDA-approved interspinous spacer with the compilation of published findings from 19 studies of decompressive laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS:

Back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) values were compared between spacer- and laminectomy-treated patients preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS:

Percentage improvements between baseline and 24 months uniformly favored patients treated with the spacer for back pain (65% vs. 52%), leg pain (70% vs. 62%), ODI (51% vs. 47%) and ZCQ symptom severity (37% vs. 29%) and physical function (36% vs. 32%).

CONCLUSION:

Both treatments provide effective and durable symptom relief of claudicant symptoms. This stand-alone interspinous spacer offers the patient a minimally invasive option with less surgical risk.

KEYWORDS:

Superion; interspinous spacer; laminectomy; lumbar spinal stenosis

PMID:
26487285
DOI:
10.1586/17434440.2015.1100071
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center