These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, van Zwet EW, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Koes BW, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Peul WC, Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group.
    Journal: BMJ; 2013 Nov 14; 347():f6415. PubMed ID: 24231273.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]