Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 May;20 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S20-6.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1753-2. Epub 2011 Mar 16.

Interspinous spacers in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: our experience with DIAM and Aperius devices

Affiliations

Interspinous spacers in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: our experience with DIAM and Aperius devices

Antonio P Fabrizi et al. Eur Spine J. 2011 May.

Abstract

Insertion of an interspinous devices has became a common procedure for the treatment of different clinical picture of degenerative spinal disease. We present our experience in 1,575 patients with the use of two different interspinous spacers: Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM) and Aperius PercLID system. From 2000 through 2008, 1,315 consecutive patients underwent DIAM implantation and 260 had an Aperius PercLID procedure. The main surgical indications included: degenerative disc disease (478 patients), canal and/or foraminal stenosis (347 patients), disc herniation (283 patients), black disc and facet syndrome (143) and topping-off (64 patients). 1,100 patients underwent a single level implant and 475 had a multiple level implant. Mean operating time was 35 min for DIAM and 7 min for Aperius. Complications were detected in 20 patients (10 cases of infections, 10 fractures of the posterior spinous processes). 40 patients were subsequently treated with posterior arthrodesis (n = 30) or total disc replacement (n = 10). Patient's postoperative clinical status was rated according to the modified Macnab criteria: symptoms resolution or improvement was achieved in 1,505 patients; and unchanged or unsatisfactory results in 70. Both techniques are safe, simple and less technically demanding. These approaches appear to be an effective alternative in selected cases, although conventional posterior lumbar decompression and fusion still may be required.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of mean VAS score at baseline and at different follow-up intervals
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of mean ZCQ score at baseline and at different follow-up intervals
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of mean ED-5D score at baseline and at different follow-up intervals

References

    1. Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA. The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2003;28(19):2192–2197. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000084877.88192.8E. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee J, Hida K, Seki T, Iwasaki Y, Minoru A. An interspinous process distractor (X STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: preliminary experiences in 10 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(1):72–77. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200402000-00013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui M, Karadimas E, Nicol M, Smith FW, Wardlaw D. Influence of X stop on neural foramina and spinal canal area in spinal stenosis. Spine. 2006;31(25):2958–2962. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000247797.92847.7d. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui M, Nicol M, Karadimas E, Smith F, Wardlaw D. The positional magnetic resonance imaging changes in the lumbar spine following insertion of a novel interspinous process distraction device. Spine. 2005;30(23):2677–2682. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000187878.79676.26. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupre GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine. 2005;30(7):744–749. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000157483.28505.e3. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms