The application value of CoflexTM interspinous process device in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy ›› 2015, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3) : 344-348.
The application value of CoflexTM interspinous process device in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
Objective To evaluate the application value of the Coflex interspinous process devicefor treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods 115 cases of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis treated with surgery were retrospectively analyzed ,the followed-up period was more than 5 years. The coflex group have 54 cases, and the fusion group have 61 cases. The perioperative indicators were compared between the two groups. The JOA、VAS、ODl and SF-36 scores were compared between the two groups. The range of the increase of intervertebral motion, the loss of the intervertebral height and the Pfirrmann grade of the adjacent segments disc were measured at the pre-operative period and the final follow-up. Results The observational index had no statistical difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). The range of increase of intervertebral motion of adjacent segments revealed no statistical difference (P> 0.05).The range of loss of intervertebral height of adjacent segments was greater in the fusion group, showing statistical difference (P< 0.01) between the two groups. The adjacent segment disc Pfirrmann grading progressed more obviously in the fusion group, demonstrating statistical difference (P< 0.05) between the two groups. Conclusion The coflex implant and lumbar fusion have equivalent efficacy in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, and the coflex implant can delay the adjacent segment pathology in radiology.
Coflex / Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis / Non-fusion;adjacentsegment pathology
[1] Kreiner DS, Shaffer WO, Baisden JL, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update)[J]. Spine J, 2013, 13(7):734-743.
[2] Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up[J]. Spine，2007, 32(20):2253-2257.
[3] Errico TJ, Kamerlink JR, Quirno M, et al. Survivorship of coflex Interlaminar-interspinous implant[J]. SAS Journal, 2009, 3(2):59-67.
[4] 海涌，周立金，苏庆军，等. 后路有限减压联合Coflex动态稳定术治疗腰椎管狭窄症的临床研究[J]. 中国骨与关节杂志, 2012, 1(1):11-16.
[5] Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, et al. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration[J]. Spine, 2001, 26(17):1873-1878.
[6] Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial[J]. Spine, 2010, 35(14):1329-1338.
[7] Kabir SM, Gupta SR, Casey AT. Lumbar interspinous spacers: a systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence[J]. Spine, 2010, 35(25):E1499-E1506.
[8] Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H, et al. Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article[J]. J Neurosurg Spine, 2013, 19(2):174-184.
[9] 梁昌详，昌耘冰，沈梓维，等. 椎管减压棘突间Coflex置入术治疗L4/5退变性腰椎管狭窄症的5年随访结果[J]. 中国脊柱脊髓杂志, 2014，24(12):1072-1078. [10] Issack PS, Cunningham ME, Pumberger M, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation and management[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2012, 20(8):527-535.
[11] Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, et al. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial[J]. BMJ, 2013, 347:f6415.
[12] Wu AM, Zhou Y, Li QL, et al. Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(5):e97142.
[13] Anderson PA, Andersson GB, Arnold PM, et al. Terminology[J]. Spine, 2012, 37(22 Suppl): S8-S9.
[14] Guyer RD, Mcafee PC, Banco RJ, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up[J]. Spine J,2009,9(5):374-386.
[15] Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, et al. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up[J]. Eur Spine J,2009,18(10):1512-1519.
[16] Goto K, Tajima N, Chosa E, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other lumbar intervertebral levels (three-dimensional finite element analysis)[J]. J Orthop Sci,2003,8(4):577-584.
[17] Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL. A biomechanical comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech,2002,15(1):53-63.
[18] Phillips FM, Reuben J, Wetzel F T. Intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to a lumbar fusion. An experimental rabbit model[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br,2002,84(2):289-294.
[19] Bono CM, Vaccaro AR. Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine[J]. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2007, 20(3):255-261.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
