@article {Plasencia Arriba681, author = {Miguel {\'A}ngel Plasencia Arriba and Carmen Maestre and Fernando Mart{\'\i}n-Gorro{\~n}o and Paula Plasencia}, title = {Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device}, volume = {16}, number = {4}, pages = {681--689}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.14444/8291}, publisher = {International Journal of Spine Surgery}, abstract = {Background Discectomy is the surgical treatment of choice for disc herniation. However, discectomy can lead to disc degeneration and vertebral instability over time. Interspinous devices (ISDs), added to conventional surgery, constitute a low-invasive alternative that attempts to prevent these complications. The aim of this study is to compare the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing conventional discectomy with those who had an ISD added during surgery.Methods This analytical-descriptive, retrospective, and transversal studyinvestigated outcomes of 114 patients who underwent surgery for a lumbar disc herniation between 2008 and 2011. The results were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 8 years (mean, 10 years) by means of different questionnaires: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), consumption of analgesic medication, work status, degree of satisfaction, and complications and reinterventions during the follow-up period.Results At the end of the follow-up, an overall improvement of VAS of 5 points (71\%) and ODI of 36 points (77\%) was observed, with a degree of satisfaction of 76\% with disc surgery. The analysis between both groups showed a better behavior in VAS and ODI in the implant group, with a pre- and postsurgery difference of 73\% and 79\% compared to 66\% and 77\% in the control group, respectively, though this finding was not statistically significant. The current analgesic consumption and the degree of satisfaction were also better in the group with an implant. Compared with the non-implant group, the number of reinterventions at the end of the follow-up was lower (7\% vs 15.5\%) and the time until the second intervention was higher (81.5 vs 41 months) in the group with an implant, but the differences were not statistically significant.Conclusions Lumbar discectomy proved to be a safe technique for the treatment of disc herniation, and results are maintained over time. The additional gesture of adding an ISD to conventional discectomy improves clinical outcomes overall, but not in a statistically significant way. The lower number of reinterventions and the longer period without surgery being required may mean a certain protective effect of the ISD on the intervertebral disc being operated on.}, URL = {http://www.ijssurgery.com/content/16/4/681}, eprint = {http://www.ijssurgery.com/content/16/4/681.full.pdf}, journal = {International Journal of Spine Surgery} }