Cargando…

Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial

Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Five neurosurgical cente...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moojen, Wouter A, Arts, Mark P, Jacobs, Wilco C H, van Zwet, Erik W, van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske, Koes, Bart W, Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A M, Peul, Wilco C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6415
_version_ 1782300450161164288
author Moojen, Wouter A
Arts, Mark P
Jacobs, Wilco C H
van Zwet, Erik W
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
Koes, Bart W
Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A M
Peul, Wilco C
author_facet Moojen, Wouter A
Arts, Mark P
Jacobs, Wilco C H
van Zwet, Erik W
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
Koes, Bart W
Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A M
Peul, Wilco C
author_sort Moojen, Wouter A
collection PubMed
description Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands. Participants 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized. Interventions 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. Main outcome measures The primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time. Results At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for standard bony decompression (72%, 60% to 81%). No differences in disability (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; P=0.44) or other outcomes were observed between groups during the first year. The repeat surgery rate in the interspinous implant group was substantially higher (n=21; 29%) than that in the conventional group (n=6; 8%) in the early post-surgical period (P<0.001). Conclusions This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional “simple” decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinous process device implantation. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR1307.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3898636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38986362014-02-19 Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial Moojen, Wouter A Arts, Mark P Jacobs, Wilco C H van Zwet, Erik W van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske Koes, Bart W Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A M Peul, Wilco C BMJ Research Objective To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands. Participants 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized. Interventions 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. Main outcome measures The primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time. Results At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for standard bony decompression (72%, 60% to 81%). No differences in disability (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; P=0.44) or other outcomes were observed between groups during the first year. The repeat surgery rate in the interspinous implant group was substantially higher (n=21; 29%) than that in the conventional group (n=6; 8%) in the early post-surgical period (P<0.001). Conclusions This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional “simple” decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinous process device implantation. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR1307. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3898636/ /pubmed/24231273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6415 Text en © Moojen et al 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Moojen, Wouter A
Arts, Mark P
Jacobs, Wilco C H
van Zwet, Erik W
van den Akker-van Marle, M Elske
Koes, Bart W
Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L A M
Peul, Wilco C
Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title_full Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title_short Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
title_sort interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24231273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6415
work_keys_str_mv AT moojenwoutera interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT artsmarkp interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jacobswilcoch interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanzweterikw interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vandenakkervanmarlemelske interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT koesbartw interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vleggeertlankampcarmenlam interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT peulwilcoc interspinousprocessdeviceversusstandardconventionalsurgicaldecompressionforlumbarspinalstenosisrandomizedcontrolledtrial