Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial

WA Moojen, MP Arts, WCH Jacobs, EW van Zwet, ME (Elske) van Marle, Bart Koes, CLAM Vleggeert-Lankamp, WC Peul

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

63 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)

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 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.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
JournalBMJ-British medical journal
Volume347
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Cite this