To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Percutaneous Interspinous… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients?

Journal article
Authors B. Meyer
Adad Baranto
F. Schils
F. Collignon
B. Zoega
L. Tan
J. C. LeHuec
Published in Neurosurgery
Volume 82
Issue 5
Pages 621-629
ISSN 0148-396X
Publication year 2018
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Orthopaedics
Pages 621-629
Language en
Keywords Interspinous device, Open decompression surgery, Lumbar spinal stenosis, Randomized controlled, lumbar spinal stenosis, x-stop, intermittent claudication, degenerative, spondylolisthesis, invasive decompression, process device, multicenter, trial, surgery, safety, Neurosciences & Neurology, Surgery
Subject categories Neurosurgery


BACKGROUND: Standalone interspinous process devices (IPDs) to treat degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) have shown ambiguous results in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To show that a minimally invasive percutaneous IPD is safe and noninferior to standalone decompressive surgery (SDS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with NIC. METHODS: A multicenter, international, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. One hundred sixty-three patients, enrolled at 19 sites, were randomized 1: 1 to treatment with IPD or SDS and were followed for 24 mo. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in Zurich Claudication Questionnaire physical function, as mean percentage change from baseline, for both the IPD and the SDS groups at 12 mo (primary endpoint) and 24 mo (-32.3 +/- 32.1, -37.5 +/- 22.8; and -37.9 +/- 21.7%, -35.2 +/- 22.8, both P <.001). IPD treatment was not significantly noninferior (margin: 10%) to SDS treatment at 12mo (P=. 172) but was significantly noninferior at 24mo (P =.005). Symptom severity, patient satisfaction, visual analog scale leg pain, and SF-36 improved in both groups over time. IPD showed lower mean surgical time andmean blood loss (24 +/- 11 min and 6 +/- 11 mL) compared to SDS (70 +/- 39 min and 189 +/- 148 mL, both P <.001). Reoperations at index level occurred in 18.2% of the patients in the IPD group and in 9.3% in the SDS group. CONCLUSION: Confirming 3 recent RCTs, we could show that IPD as well as open decompression achieve similar results in relieving symptoms of NIC in highly selected patients. However, despite some advantages in secondary outcomes, a higher reoperation rate for IPD is confirmed.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?