A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion

Zheng,Xiaoqing; Chen,Zhida; Yu,Honglong; Zhuang,Jianxiong; Yu,Hui; Chang,Yunbing

doi:10.3892/etm.2021.10027

A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion

Authors:
- Xiaoqing Zheng
- Zhida Chen
- Honglong Yu
- Jianxiong Zhuang
- Hui Yu
- Yunbing Chang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopaedics, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510030, P.R. China, Department of Orthopaedics, The 909th Hospital of People's Liberation Army, The Affiliated Southeast Hospital of Xiamen University, Orthopedic Center of People's Liberation Army, Zhangzhou, Fujian 363000, P.R. China, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, P.R. China
Published online on: April 9, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.10027
Article Number: 595
Copyright: © Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The current study aimed to compare the outcomes of decompression and interlaminar stabilisation with those of decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) at a minimum 8‑year follow‑up. The current study also aimed to analyse the risk factors of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). A total of 82 consecutive patients with LDD who underwent surgery between June 2007 and February 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 39 underwent decompression and Coflex interspinous stabilisation (Coflex group) and 43 underwent decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (PLIF group). All patients had a minimum of 8‑years of follow‑up data. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and the risk factors of developing radiographic ASD were also evaluated. The Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale leg and back pain scores of both groups significantly improved compared with the baseline (all P<0.05), and no difference were indicated between the two groups at each follow‑up time point (P>0.05). The Coflex group exhibited preserved mobility (P<0.001), which was associated with a decreased amount of blood loss (P<0.001), shorter duration of surgery (P=0.001), shorter duration of hospital stay and a lower incidence of ASD (12.8 vs. 32.56%; P=0.040) compared with the fusion group. The current study indicated that coflex and fusion technologies are safe and effective for the treatment of LDD, based on long‑term follow‑up data. However, Coflex interspinous stabilisation was revealed to reduce ASD incidence. Under strict indications, Coflex interspinous stabilisation is an effective and safe treatment method.

View Figures

View References

1	Du Bois M, Szpalski M and Donceel P: Patients at risk for long-term sick leave because of low back pain. Spine J. 9:350–359. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Brantigan JW, Neidre A and Toohey JS: The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J. 4:681–688. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR and Hilibrand AS: Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 33:1701–1707. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Lai PL, Chen LH, Niu CC, Fu TS and Chen WJ: Relation between laminectomy and development of adjacent segment instability after lumbar fusion with pedicle fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 29:2527–2532. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Lin B, Yu H, Chen Z, Huang Z and Zhang W: Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 17(374)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Pearson A, Blood E, Lurie J, Abdu W, Sengupta D, Frymoyer JW and Weinstein J: Predominant leg pain is associated with better surgical outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: Results from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 36:219–229. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Kleinstück FS, Grob D, Lattig F, Bartanusz V, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, O'Riordan D and Mannion AF: The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 34:1198–1203. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Imagama S, Kawakami N, Matsubara Y, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Katayama Y, Ishiguro N and Kanemura T: Radiographic adjacent segment degeneration at 5 years after L4/5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: Evaluation by computed tomography and annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Spine Surg. 29:E442–E451. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Volkheimer D, Malakoutian M, Oxland TR and Wilke HJ: Limitations of current in vitro test protocols for investigation of instrumented adjacent segment biomechanics: Critical analysis of the literature. Eur Spine J. 24:1882–1892. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Musacchio MJ, Lauryssen C, Davis RJ, Bae HW, Peloza JH, Guyer RD, Zigler JE, Ohnmeiss DD and Leary S: Evaluation of decompression and interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Int J Spine Surg. 10(6)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Hilibrand AS and Robbins M: Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: The consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 4 (Suppl 6):190S–194S. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Trautwein FT, Lowery GL, Wharton ND, Hipp JA and Chomiak RJ: Determination of the in vivo posterior loading environment of the Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. Spine J. 10:244–251. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Gala RJ, Russo GS and Whang PG: Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 10:182–188. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Kaner T, Sasani M, Oktenoglu T and Ozer AF: Dynamic stabilization of the spine: A new classification system. Turk Neurosurg. 20:205–215. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Sangiorgio SN, Sheikh H, Borkowski SL, Khoo L, Warren CR and Ebramzadeh E: Comparison of three posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 36:E1251–E1258. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Bae HW, Lauryssen C, Maislin G, Leary S and Musacchio MJ Jr: Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: A four year assessment. Int J Spine Surg. 9(15)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Kong C, Lu S, Hai Y and Zang L: Biomechanical effect of interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion on range of motion of the transition segment and the adjacent segment. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 30:355–359. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J and Boos N: Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 26:1873–1878. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Chen XL, Guan L, Liu YZ, Yang JC, Wang WL and Hai Y: Interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion versus double-segment fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum follow-up of three years. Int Orthop. 40:1275–1283. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Alentado VJ, Lubelski D, Healy AT, Orr RD, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC and Mroz TE: Predisposing characteristics of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 41:1167–1172. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Yuan W, Su QJ, Liu T, Yang JC, Kang N, Guan L and Hai Y: Evaluation of Coflex interspinous stabilization following decompression compared with decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A minimum 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Neurosci. 35:24–29. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC and Brodke DS: Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: A systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 37 (Suppl 22):S123–S132. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Tsai KJ, Murakami H, Lowery GL and Hutton WC: A biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous device (Coflex) used to stabilize the lumbar spine. J Surg Orthop Adv. 15:167–172. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
24	Richter A, Schütz C, Hauck M and Halm H: Does an interspinous device (Coflex) improve the outcome of decompressive surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis? One-year follow up of a prospective case control study of 60 patients. Eur Spine J. 19:283–289. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Errico TJ, Kamerlink JR, Quirno M, Samani J and Chomiak RJ: Survivorship of coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant. SAS J. 3:59–67. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H and Errico TJ: Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 19:174–184. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Soukane DM, Shirazi-Adl A and Urban JP: Computation of coupled diffusion of oxygen, glucose and lactic acid in an intervertebral disc. J Biomech. 40:2645–2654. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Galbusera F, van Rijsbergen M, Ito K, Huyghe JM, Brayda-Bruno M and Wilke HJ: Ageing and degenerative changes of the intervertebral disc and their impact on spinal flexibility. Eur Spine J. 23 (Suppl 3):S324–S332. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Adams MA and Dolan P: Intervertebral disc degeneration: Evidence for two distinct phenotypes. J Anat. 221:497–506. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Mannion AF, Leivseth G, Brox JI, Fritzell P, Hägg O and Fairbank JC: ISSLS Prize winner: Long-term follow-up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome: results of a combined follow-up from 4 randomized controlled trials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 39:1373–1383. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Yang JY, Lee JK and Song HS: The impact of adjacent segment degeneration on the clinical outcome after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 33:503–507. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Zhu Z, Liu C, Wang K, Zhou J, Wang J, Zhu Y and Liu H: Topping-off technique prevents aggravation of degeneration of adjacent segment fusion revealed by retrospective and finite element biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 10(10)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Perez-Orribo L, Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Reyes PM, Rodriguez-Martinez NG and Crawford NR: Biomechanics of a posterior lumbar motion stabilizing device: In vitro comparison to intact and fused conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 41:E55–E63. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK and Dawson EG: Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 86:1497–1503. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
35	Kumar MN, Baklanov A and Chopin D: Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 10:314–319. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
36	Dong Y, Zheng X, Gu H, Liang G, Zhuang J, Liang CX, Liu B and Chang Y: Is the interspinous device (Coflex) outdated in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis? A seven-year follow-up. Spine Res. 4(2)2018.