ANALYSIS OF INTERSPINOUS DYNAMIC STABILIZATION FAILURES IN DEGENERATIVE DISEASE OF THE LUMBAR SPINE
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2013.3.44-52
Abstract
Objective. To analyze the causes of interspinous dynamic stabilization failures in patients with lumbar spine degenerative disorders.
Material and Methods. Retrospective analysis of 155 cases of interspinous dynamic stabilization using DIAM device was performed. Twenty three cases with poor results were selected for detailed analysis.
Results. It was revealed that reoperation rate for this method was 15 %, but only 8 % of failures were related to the technology itself. Main complications associated with interspinous stabilization devices included fracture and erosion of the spinous processes, destruction and migration of implants, and infection. In nine cases poor results were associated with surgeon’s mistake in planning or performing of the procedure.
Conclusion. Decision making for performing interspinous stabilization should be based on evaluation of indications and factors, which adversely affect its prognosis. These factors include elderly age of a patient, decreased bone quality, narrow and short interspinous gap, significant deformation and hypertrophy of the articular processes, significant slope of the spinous process, and essential amount of the planned bone decompression.
About the Authors
Aleksandr Yakovlevich Aleynik
Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey Gennadyevich Mlyavykh
Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey Evgenyevich Bokov
Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr Ivanovich Ushakov
Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga Aleksandrovna Perlmutter
Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Аганесов А.Г., Месхи К.Т., Хейло А.Л. и др. Динамическая фиксация позвоночника после микрохирургической дискэктомии // Вестн. травматол. и ортопед. им. H.H. Приорова. 2008. № 2. С. 11–14.
2. Кавалерский Г.М., Макиров С.К., Ченский М.Д. и др. Тактика хирургического лечения дегенеративно-дистрофических заболеваний пояснично-крестцового отдела позвоночника у лиц пожилого и старческого возраста // Вестн. травматол. и ортопед. им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2009. № 2. С. 40–46.
3. Симонович А.Е., Маркин С.П., Байкалов А.А. и др. Лечение дегенеративных поражений поясничного отдела позвоночника с использованием межостистых динамических имплантатов COFLEX и DIAM // Хирургия позвоночника. 2007. № 1. С. 21–28.
4. Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006; 4: 463–471.
5. Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, et al. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus. 2010; 28: E8.
6. Cabraja M, Abbushi A, Woiciechowsky C, et al. The short- and mid-term effect of dynamic interspinous distraction in the treatment of recurrent lumbar facet joint pain. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18: 1686–1694.
7. Cho KS, Kang SG, Yoo DS, et al. Risk factors and surgical treatment for symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spine fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009; 46: 425–430.
8. Errico TJ, Kamerlink JR, Quirno M, et al. Survivorship of coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. SAS Journal. 2009; 3: 59–67.
9. Jerosch J, Moursi MG. Foreign body reaction due to polyethylene’s wear after implantation of an interspinal segment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008; 128: 1–4.
10. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, et al. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion? Eur Spine J. 2009; 18: 830–840.
11. Lawhorne TW 3rd, Girardi FP, Mina CA, et al. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18: 815–822.
12. Loguidice V, Bini W, Shabat S, et al. Rationale, design and clinical performance of the Superion® Interspinous Spacer: a minimally invasive implant for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8: 419–426.
13. Mayer HM, Zentz F, Siepe C, et al. [Percutaneous interspinous distraction for the treatment of dynamic lumbar spinal stenosis and low back pain]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2010; 22: 495–511.
14. Meyerding HW. Spondylolisthesis; surgical fusion of lumbosacral portion of spinal column and interarticular facets; use of autogenous bone grafts for relief of disabling backache. J Int Coll Surg. 1956; 26: 566–591.
15. Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, et al. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2001; 26: 1873–1878.
16. Postacchini R, Ferrari E, Cinotti G, et al. Aperius interspinous implant versus open surgical decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2011; 11: 933–939.
17. Senegas J, Vital JM, Pointillart V, et al. Long-term actuarial survivorship analysis of an interspinous stabilization system. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16: 1279–1287.
18. Senegas J. Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degenerative intervertebral lumbar segments: the Wallis system. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11: S164–S169.
19. Shabat S, Miller LE, Block JE, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with a novel interspinous spacer. Clin Interv Aging. 2011; 6: 227–233.
20. Sur YJ, Kong CG, Park JB. Survivorship analysis of 150 consecutive patients with DIAM™ implantation for surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20: 280–288.
21. Tamburrelli FC, Proietti L, Logroscino CA. Critical analysis of lumbar interspinous devices failures: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20: S27–S35.
22. Taylor J, Pupin P, Delajoux S, et al. Device for intervertebral assisted motion: technique and initial results. Neurosurg Focus. 2007; 22: E6.
23. Zhao Y, Wang YP, Qiu GX, et al. Efficacy of the Dynamic Interspinous Assisted Motion system in clinical treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Chin Med J. 2010; 123: 2974–2977.
24. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine. 2005; 30: 1351–1358.
Review
For citations:
Aleynik A.Ya., Mlyavykh S.G., Bokov A.E., Ushakov A.I., Perlmutter O.A. ANALYSIS OF INTERSPINOUS DYNAMIC STABILIZATION FAILURES IN DEGENERATIVE DISEASE OF THE LUMBAR SPINE. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2013;(3):044-052. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2013.3.44-52
Email this article 