Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis

  • Motion Preserving Spine Surgery (C Kepler, section editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Lumbar spinal stenosis has historically been treated with open decompressive surgery which is associated with significant morbidity and may give rise to various complications. Interspinous spacers (ISS) have been developed as a less invasive strategy which may serve to avoid many of these risks. The two current spacers that are FDA approved and commercially available are the Coflex and Superion devices. The goal is to review these two implants, their indications, and patient selection.

Recent findings

The Coflex device has been shown to be analogous to decompression and fusion when treating moderate spinal stenosis. It provides dynamic stability after a decompression is performed, without the rigidity of pedicle-screw instrumentation. Recent results show improved outcomes in Coflex patients at 3 years of follow-up, as compared to decompression and fusion.

The Superion implant is placed percutaneously in the interspinous space with minimal disruption of spinal anatomy. When compared to the X-Stop device (which is no longer available), the Superion implant shows improved outcomes at 3 years of follow-up.

Summary

ISS are lesser invasive options as compared to formal decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance•• Of major importance

  1. Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(17):2046–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):818–25. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp0708097.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, Reilly J. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978;3(4):319–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(4):467–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(1):1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bono CM, Vaccaro AR. Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(3):255–61. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3180331352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupre GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):744–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:975052. doi:10.1155/2014/975052.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. coflex Interlaminar Technology. 2014. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm327502.htm. Accessed 12/1/2016.

  10. •• Bae HW, Davis RJ, Lauryssen C, Leary S, Maislin G, Musacchio Jr MJ. Three-year follow-up of the prospective, randomized, controlled trial of coflex interlaminar stabilization vs instrumented fusion in patients with lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(2):169–81. doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000001237. The FDA post-approval study, presenting 36 month follow-up data of the randomized, controlled trial, comparing decompression and coflex with decompression and instrumented fusion. Patients underwent one- or two-level surgery

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. • Chen XL, Guan L, Liu YZ, Yang JC, Wang WL, 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. 2016;40(6):1275–83. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3199-y. A retrospective cohort study evaluating the “topping off” technique. The authors compared 88 patients who underwent two-level lumbar decompression and fusion, with 76 patients who underwent one-level fusion with Coflex implantation in the adjacent superior level. Average follow-up was around 48 months

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Kong C, Lu S, Hai Y, 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. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30(4):355–9. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.02.012. Biomechanical study of the “topping off” technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating four different configurations: 1) no intervention, 2) fusion at L5/S1, 3) fusion at L5/S1 with decompression at L4/5, and 4) fusion at L5/S1 with decompression and Coflex insertion at L4/5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • Che W, Chen Q, Ma YQ, Jiang YQ, Yuan W, Zhou XG et al. Single-level rigid fixation combined with Coflex: a biomechanical study. Medical Science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2016;22:1022–1027. Biomechanical study of the “topping off” technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating two different configurations: 1) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4/5, 2) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4/5 with Coflex insertion at L3/4.

  14. • Roder C, Baumgartner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E. Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(10):2228–35. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4124-6. Database retrospective chart review, comparing 50 matched pairs of patients who either underwent lumbar decompression alone or lumbar decompression with Coflex insertion. Follow-up was less than one year.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bini W, Miller LE, Block JE. Minimally invasive treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis with the superion interspinous spacer. The open orthopaedics journal. 2011;5:361–7. doi:10.2174/1874325001105010361.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shabat S, Miller LE, Block JE, Gepstein R. Minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with a novel interspinous spacer. Clin Interv Aging. 2011;6:227–33. doi:10.2147/cia.s23656.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Superion InterSpinous Spacer. 2015. Accessed 12/01/2016.

  18. • Lauryssen C, Jackson RJ, Baron JM, Tallarico RA, Lavelle WF, Deutsch H, et al. Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert review of medical devices. 2015;12(6):763–9. doi:10.1586/17434440.2015.1100071. Patients from the Superion clinical trial were compared against historical controls for decompressive laminectomy. Outcomes were evaluated at 24 months after intervention

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Patel VV, Nunley PD, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Davis RP, et al. Superion® interspinous spacer for treatment of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: durable three-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2015a;8:657–62. doi:10.2147/jpr.s92633. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 36 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. • Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Nunley PD, Davis RP, et al. Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015b;40(5):275–82. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000735. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 24 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. • Schmier JK, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K. Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR. 2014;6:125–31. doi:10.2147/ceor.s59194. Cost-effectiveness study, looking at five-year costs, of decompression and Coflex insertion compared to decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. • Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:28. doi:10.14444/2028. Cost-effectiveness study comparing conservative care, decompression, or Superion implant, for treating lumbar spinal stenosis. Cost analyses were evaluated at the two-year mark.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, 47 College Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Raj J. Gala, Glenn S. Russo & Peter G. Whang

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, PO Box 208071, New Haven, CT, 06520-8071, USA

    Raj J. Gala

Authors
  1. Raj J. Gala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glenn S. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter G. Whang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raj J. Gala.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Peter G. Whang reports personal fees from Paradigm Spine and institutional support from Vertiflex during the conduct of study.

Raj J. Gala and Glenn S. Russo declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Motion Preserving Spine Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gala, R.J., Russo, G.S. & Whang, P.G. Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10, 182–188 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9413-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9413-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation