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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |