Cargando…

Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study

BACKGROUND: Rocker is a novel interspinous process stabilization (IPS) that can be installed via unilateral approach by virtue of its unique design. This controlled study compared the clinical outcome of Rocker versus X-Stop to access the feasibility and validity of the novel IPS. METHODS: From Marc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Weimin, Chang, Zhengqi, Zhang, Jingtao, Song, Ruoxian, Yu, Xiuchun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26522063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0786-9
_version_ 1782398570133979136
author Huang, Weimin
Chang, Zhengqi
Zhang, Jingtao
Song, Ruoxian
Yu, Xiuchun
author_facet Huang, Weimin
Chang, Zhengqi
Zhang, Jingtao
Song, Ruoxian
Yu, Xiuchun
author_sort Huang, Weimin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rocker is a novel interspinous process stabilization (IPS) that can be installed via unilateral approach by virtue of its unique design. This controlled study compared the clinical outcome of Rocker versus X-Stop to access the feasibility and validity of the novel IPS. METHODS: From March 2011 to September 2012, 32 patients treated with Rocker and 30 patients treated with X-Stop were enrolled in this study. The primary clinical outcome measure was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The secondary clinical outcome measure was Japanese orthopaedics association (JOA) score. Disc height index (DHI) and foraminal height index (FHI) were measured for postoperative radiographic evaluation. Implant failures were also recorded. RESULTS: There were 55 patients with complete data during 24 months follow-up. Among the 55 patients, 38 patients underwent IPS in combination with microdecompression. At the final follow-up, 49 patients achieved a minimal clinical important difference (≥8 points ODI improvement). The mean operative time was 53.6 min (range, 30 to 90 min) in Rocker group and 63.1 min (range, 30 to 100 min) in X-Stop group. The average blood loss was 111 ml (range, 50 to 400 ml) in Rocker group and 138 ml (range, 50 to 350 ml) in X-Stop group. ODI score were significantly improved from preoperative 46.8 ± 9.2 to 12.2 ± 2.6 at 24 months follow-up in the Rocker group and from preoperative 45.8 ± 9.8 to 11.8 ± 2.4 at 24 months follow-up in the X-Stop group. JOA score also improved significantly in both groups. The radiographic parameters of DHI and FHI in both groups increased immediately postoperatively, however, the improvements seemed to revert toward initial value during follow-up. Two patients in Rocker group demonstrated implant dislocation within one week postoperatively and one patient in X-Stop group demonstrated implant migration at two months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary clinical and radiographic outcome was similar between Rocker and X-Stop group. For patients of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral nerve root involved or mild-to-moderate central canal stenosis, Rocker offers a new alternative with less damage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4629402
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46294022015-11-03 Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study Huang, Weimin Chang, Zhengqi Zhang, Jingtao Song, Ruoxian Yu, Xiuchun BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Rocker is a novel interspinous process stabilization (IPS) that can be installed via unilateral approach by virtue of its unique design. This controlled study compared the clinical outcome of Rocker versus X-Stop to access the feasibility and validity of the novel IPS. METHODS: From March 2011 to September 2012, 32 patients treated with Rocker and 30 patients treated with X-Stop were enrolled in this study. The primary clinical outcome measure was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The secondary clinical outcome measure was Japanese orthopaedics association (JOA) score. Disc height index (DHI) and foraminal height index (FHI) were measured for postoperative radiographic evaluation. Implant failures were also recorded. RESULTS: There were 55 patients with complete data during 24 months follow-up. Among the 55 patients, 38 patients underwent IPS in combination with microdecompression. At the final follow-up, 49 patients achieved a minimal clinical important difference (≥8 points ODI improvement). The mean operative time was 53.6 min (range, 30 to 90 min) in Rocker group and 63.1 min (range, 30 to 100 min) in X-Stop group. The average blood loss was 111 ml (range, 50 to 400 ml) in Rocker group and 138 ml (range, 50 to 350 ml) in X-Stop group. ODI score were significantly improved from preoperative 46.8 ± 9.2 to 12.2 ± 2.6 at 24 months follow-up in the Rocker group and from preoperative 45.8 ± 9.8 to 11.8 ± 2.4 at 24 months follow-up in the X-Stop group. JOA score also improved significantly in both groups. The radiographic parameters of DHI and FHI in both groups increased immediately postoperatively, however, the improvements seemed to revert toward initial value during follow-up. Two patients in Rocker group demonstrated implant dislocation within one week postoperatively and one patient in X-Stop group demonstrated implant migration at two months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary clinical and radiographic outcome was similar between Rocker and X-Stop group. For patients of lumbar spinal stenosis with unilateral nerve root involved or mild-to-moderate central canal stenosis, Rocker offers a new alternative with less damage. BioMed Central 2015-11-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4629402/ /pubmed/26522063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0786-9 Text en © Huang et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Huang, Weimin
Chang, Zhengqi
Zhang, Jingtao
Song, Ruoxian
Yu, Xiuchun
Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title_full Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title_fullStr Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title_short Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
title_sort interspinous process stabilization with rocker via unilateral approach versus x-stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629402/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26522063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0786-9
work_keys_str_mv AT huangweimin interspinousprocessstabilizationwithrockerviaunilateralapproachversusxstopviabilateralapproachforlumbarspinalstenosisacomparativestudy
AT changzhengqi interspinousprocessstabilizationwithrockerviaunilateralapproachversusxstopviabilateralapproachforlumbarspinalstenosisacomparativestudy
AT zhangjingtao interspinousprocessstabilizationwithrockerviaunilateralapproachversusxstopviabilateralapproachforlumbarspinalstenosisacomparativestudy
AT songruoxian interspinousprocessstabilizationwithrockerviaunilateralapproachversusxstopviabilateralapproachforlumbarspinalstenosisacomparativestudy
AT yuxiuchun interspinousprocessstabilizationwithrockerviaunilateralapproachversusxstopviabilateralapproachforlumbarspinalstenosisacomparativestudy