Two-year clinical outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing two interspinous spacers for treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Fred H Geisler¹  Jon E Block⁷  Larry E Miller⁷  Pierce D Nunley²  W Daniel Bradley⁶  Thomas R Haley³  Peter G Whang⁴  Vikas V Patel⁵ 

[1] The Chicago Back Institute at Swedish Covenant Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA;Spine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, USA;Performance Spine and Sports Physicians, P.C., Pottstown, PA, USA;Yale Orthopaedics/Spine Service, New Haven, CT, USA;University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, CO, USA;Texas Back Institute, Denton, TX, USA;The Jon Block Group, 2210 Jackson Street, Suite 401, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA

关键词: Superion;    Randomized controlled trial;    Minimally invasive;    Lumbar spinal stenosis;    Interspinous spacer;   

Others  :  1125497
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-221

 received in 2013-08-30, accepted in 2014-07-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical alternative for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) unresponsive to conservative care. The purpose of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate LSS treated with the Superion® (Experimental) or the X-Stop®, a FDA-approved interspinous spacer (Control).

Methods

A total of 250 patients with moderate LSS unresponsive to conservative care were randomly allocated to treatment with the Experimental (n = 123) or Control (n = 127) interspinous spacer and followed through 2 years post-treatment. Complication data were available for all patients and patient-reported outcomes were available for 192 patients (101 Experimental, 91 Control) at 2 years.

Results

Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity and Physical Function scores improved 34% to 36% in both groups through 2 years (all p < 0.001). Patient Satisfaction scores at 2 years were 1.8 ± 0.9 with Experimental and 1.6 ± 0.8 with Control. Axial pain decreased from 59 ± 26 mm at baseline to 21 ± 26 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 55 ± 26 mm to 21 ± 25 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Extremity pain decreased from 67 ± 24 mm to 14 ± 22 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 63 ± 24 mm to 18 ± 23 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Back function assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index similarly improved with Experimental (37 ± 12% to 18 ± 16%) and Control (39 ± 12% to 20 ± 16%) (both p < 0.001). Freedom from reoperation at the index level was 84% for Experimental and 83% for Control (log-rank: p = 0.38) at 2 years.

Conclusions

Both interspinous spacers effectively alleviated pain and improved back function to a similar degree through 2 years in patients with moderate LSS who were unresponsive to conservative care.

Trial registration

NCT00692276.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Patel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Fig. 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Katz JN, Harris MB: Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008, 358(8):818-825.
• [2]Markman JD, Gaud KG: Lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults: current understanding and future directions. Clin Geriatr Med 2008, 24(2):369-388. viii
• [3]Deyo RA: Drug therapy for back pain. Which drugs help which patients? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996, 21(24):2840-2849. discussion 2849–2850
• [4]Cuckler JM, Bernini PA, Wiesel SW, Booth RE Jr, Rothman RH, Pickens GT: The use of epidural steroids in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985, 67(1):63-66.
• [5]Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Wu YA, Deyo RA, Singer DE: Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(8):936-943.
• [6]Ciol MA, Deyo RA, Howell E, Kreif S: An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996, 44(3):285-290.
• [7]Siddiqui M, Smith FW, Wardlaw D: One-year results of X Stop interspinous implant for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(12):1345-1348.
• [8]Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(22):2940-2952. discussion 2952
• [9]ASTM Standard F136-02a: Standard specification for wrought titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium ELI (extra low interstitial) alloy for surgical implant applications (UNS R56401). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2002. DOI: 10.1520/F0136-02A, http://www.astm.org webcite
• [10]Chiu JC: Interspinous process decompression (IPD) system (X-STOP) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surg Technol Int 2006, 15:265-275.
• [11]Miller LE, Block JE: Interspinous spacer implant in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Pain Res Treat 2012, 2012:823509.
• [12]Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008, 33(1):90-94.
• [13]Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A: The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003, 12(1):12-20.
• [14]Zigler J, Delamarter R, Spivak JM, Linovitz RJ, Danielson GO 3rd, Haider TT, Cammisa F, Zuchermann J, Balderston R, Kitchel S, Foley K, Watkins R, Bradford D, Yue J, Yuan H, Herkowitz H, Geiger D, Bendo J, Peppers T, Sachs B, Girardi F, Kropf M, Goldstein J, et al.: Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(11):1155-1162. discussion 1163
• [15]Bini W, Miller LE, Block JE: Minimally invasive treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis with the superion interspinous spacer: preliminary results. SAS JIn press
• [16]Shabat S, Miller LE, Block JE, Gepstein R: Minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with a novel interspinous spacer. Clin Interv Aging 2011, 6:227-233.
• [17]Postacchini R, Ferrari E, Cinotti G, Menchetti PP, Postacchini F: Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2011, 11(10):933-939.
• [18]Bini W, Miller LE, Block JE: Minimally invasive treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis with the superion interspinous spacer. Open Orthop J 2011, 5:361-367.