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
. 2012:3:7.
doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.92172. Epub 2012 Jan 21.

A review of interspinous fusion devices: High complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes

Nancy E Epstein  1
Affiliations

A review of interspinous fusion devices: High complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes

Nancy E Epstein. Surg Neurol Int. 2012.

Abstract

Background: Interspinous fusion devices (IFDs) are increasingly offered to patients over the age of 50 with lumbar spinal stenosis and intermittent neurogenic claudication. Here, we review the literature on complication rates, reoperation rates, and outcomes for implanting IFD, and offer an assessment of IFD charges at a single institution in 2010.

Methods: The literature concerning IFD implants was reviewed with particular attention focused on complications, reoperation rates, and outcomes. Additionally, the costs of implanting 31 IFD devices in 16 patients at one to three levels at a single institution in 2010 are presented.

Results: Reviewing the spinal literature concerning the postoperative status of IFD followed over an average of 23-42.9 postoperative months revealed that IFD resulted in 11.6-38% complication rate, 4.6-85% reoperation rate, and 66.7-77% frequency of poor outcomes. Additionally, the 31 devices implanted in 16 patients at a single university hospital in 2010 cost a total of $576,407.

Conclusions: With high maximal complication rates (38%), reoperation rates (85%), poor outcomes (77%), and high costs ($576,407 for 31 devices in 16 patients), the utilization and implantation of IFD remains extremely controversial and should be investigated further.

Keywords: Complications; high costs; interspinous fusion devices; lumbar stenosis; poor outcomes; reoperations.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Barbagallo GM, Olindo G, Corvino L, Albanese V. Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-STOP interspinous process decompression system: Proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patients selection and review of the literature. Neurosurgery. 2009;665:1111–9. - PubMed
    1. Barbagallo GM, Corbino LA, Olindo G, Foti P, Albanese V, Signorelli F. The “sandwich phenomenon” a rare complication in adjacent, double-level X-STOP surgery: Report of three cases and review of the literature. Spine. 2010;35:E96–100. - PubMed
    1. Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: Review of complications associated with the X-STOP device. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E8. - PubMed
    1. Burnett MG, Stein SC, Bartels RH. Cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: Nonsurgical care, laminectomy, and X-STOP. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:39–46. - PubMed
    1. Brussee P, Hauth J, Donk RD, Cerbeek AL, Bartels RH. Self-rated evaluation of outcome of the implantation of interspinous process distraction (X-STOP) for neurogenic claudication. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:200–3. - PMC - PubMed