Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device
- PMID: 20568923
- DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.FOCUS1047
Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device
Abstract
Object: The X-Stop interspinous device is designed for the treatment of patients with neurogenic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. It distracts the posterior elements of adjacent vertebral bodies, unloading the intervertebral disc, limiting spinal extension, and improving central canal and neuroforaminal stenosis. In this paper, the authors reviewed the complications and failure/reoperation rates in a small series of patients and compared their results with other reported complication and failure/reoperation rates.
Methods: The medical records of all patients who underwent placement of the X-Stop device for the treatment of NIC at the authors' institution were retrospectively evaluated, and demographic information, diagnosis, and preoperative pain levels were recorded. Postoperatively, patients subjectively graded the percentage (0-100%) of improvement in pain as well as the amount of residual pain and underwent imaging at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals. Approximately 4 years after X-Stop placement, information on long-term outcomes was obtained from patient medical records or additional follow-up.
Results: Thirteen patients (8 men and 5 women) underwent placement of the X-Stop device. Central canal stenosis with bilateral foraminal stenosis was diagnosed in all patients: 9 (69%) of 13 had severe stenosis and 4 (31%) of 13 had moderate stenosis. Five patients (38%) also had associated Grade I spondylolisthesis. Nine patients underwent placement of the X-Stop device at the L4-5 interspinous space and 4 at both the L3-4 and L4-5 levels. The average duration of follow-up was 42.9 months (range 3-48 months). Initially, pain improved an average of 72% (range 50-100%) in these patients; however, preoperative pain returned in 77% of the patients (10 of 13). The overall complication rate was 38%, including 3 spinous process fractures (23%) and 2 instances of new-onset radiculopathy (15%). The ultimate failure rate requiring additional spinal surgery was 85% (11 of 13 patients). These complication and failure rates are much higher than those previously reported.
Conclusions: Overdistraction, poor bone density, poor patient selection, and preexistent adjacent foraminal stenosis may all be factors in the development of the aforementioned complications. Thus, careful attention should be paid preoperatively to adjacent-level disease, bone density, appropriate implant size, and optimal patient selection.
Similar articles
-
Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study.Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E14. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15244. Neurosurg Focus. 2015. PMID: 26424338
-
Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis.Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):823-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0967-z. Epub 2009 Apr 22. Eur Spine J. 2009. PMID: 19387698 Free PMC article.
-
The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 May 27;11:100. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-100. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010. PMID: 20507568 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature.Neurosurgery. 2009 Jul;65(1):111-19; discussion 119-20. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000346254.07116.31. Neurosurgery. 2009. PMID: 19574832 Review.
-
The "sandwich phenomenon": a rare complication in adjacent, double-level X-stop surgery: report of three cases and review of the literature.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Feb 1;35(3):E96-100. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c83820. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010. PMID: 20075767 Review.
Cited by
-
Clinical outcomes of a polyaxial interspinous fusion system.Int J Spine Surg. 2014 Dec 1;8:35. doi: 10.14444/1035. eCollection 2014. Int J Spine Surg. 2014. PMID: 25694912 Free PMC article.
-
The interspinous spacer: a new posterior dynamic stabilization concept for prevention of adjacent segment disease.Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:637362. doi: 10.1155/2013/637362. Epub 2013 Apr 10. Adv Orthop. 2013. PMID: 23662209 Free PMC article.
-
Minimally invasive procedures on the lumbar spine.World J Clin Cases. 2015 Jan 16;3(1):1-9. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.1. World J Clin Cases. 2015. PMID: 25610845 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical evaluation of the preliminary safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive interspinous process device APERIUS(®) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with symptomatic neurogenic intermittent claudication.Eur Spine J. 2012 Dec;21(12):2565-72. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2330-z. Epub 2012 May 8. Eur Spine J. 2012. PMID: 22565799 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Morphometry of lumbar spinous process via three dimensional CT reconstruction in a Chinese population.Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jan 15;8(1):1129-36. eCollection 2015. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015. PMID: 25785103 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical