The influence of interspinous implant on dynamics of pain syndrome and life quality at patients with degenerative disease of lumbar spine
Abstract
Objective - to estimate the surgical treatment efficacy at patients with degenerative disease of lumbar spine with the usage of interspinous dynamic implant. Material and methods: the operative treatment was performed at 100 patients with degenerative disease of lumbar spine. These patients were divided into two groups including 50 persons each. All patients in both groups underwent microsurgical diskectomy with curettage of disk bed and decompression of neural structures. The placement of interspinous dynamic implant was performed at patients in main (examined) group. Computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional roentgenograms were done in pre- and postoperative periods. We used VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) and Oswestry scale for estimation of treatment quality. Results: the number of surgical complications didn’t significant differ between patients of two examined groups. Patient operated on with the usage of interspinous dynamic implant showed statistically significant better outcomes with the fewer score according to VAS and Oswestry during first postoperative year. There was no progressive degeneration of adjacent intervertebral disks at patients in both groups. Conclusion: the usage of interspinous dynamic implant leads to decrease of residual pain and increase of life quality with the following stabilization of patients’ condition.
About the Authors
A. B. Bamatov
Городская клиническая больница № 67
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. N. Dreval
Российская медицинская академия последипломного образования
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. V. Kuznetcov
Российская медицинская академия последипломного образования
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Гайдар Б.В. Глава 23. // Практическая нейрохирургия. - СПб. - Гиппократ, - 2002. - С. 533-536.
2. Симонович А.Е., Маркин С.П., Нуралиев И.И. и соавт. Влияние динамической фиксации поясничных позвоночных сегментов на их подвижность. // Хирургия позвоночника. - 2008. - N. 4. - С. 30-36.
3. Ambrossi G.L., McGirt M.J., Sciubba D.M. et all. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation after single-level lumbar discectomy: incidence and health care cost analysis. // Neurosurgery. - 2009 - Sep. - Vol. 65. - N 3. - P. 574-578.
4. Bundschuh C.V., Modic M.T., Ross J.S. et al. Epidural Fibrosis and Recurrent Disk Herniation in the Lumbar Spine: MR Imaging Assessment. // AJR. - 1988. - April. - Vol. 150. - N. 4. - P. 923-932.
5. Etebar S., Cahill D.W. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. // J. Neurosurg. - 1999. - Vol. 90. - N. 2. - P. 163-169.
6. Frank M. Phillips, Leonard I. et al. Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilizing device (DIAM) after facetectomy and discectomy. // The Spine Journal. - 2006. - Vol. 6. - N 6. - P. 714-722.
7. Highsmith J.M., Tumialán L.M., Rodts G.E. Jr. Flexible rods and the case for dynamic stabilization. // Neurosurg. Focus. - 2007. - Jan. - Vol. 22. - N. 1. - P. 1-5.
8. Huiren Tao, Hongbin Fan. Implantation of amniotic membrane to reduce postlaminectomy epidural adhesions. // Eur. Spine J. - 2009. - Vol. 18. - N. 8. - P. 1202-1212.
9. Kern S., Frank M.Ph. DIAM (Device for Intervertebral assisted Motion) Spinal Stabilization System. // Dynamic reconstruction of the spine. Section III. Restoration of lumbar motion segment: C. dynamic posterior stabilization. - Thieme. - 2006. - P. 274-283.
10. Martínez Quiñones J.V., Aso J., Consolini F. et al. Longterm outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy in a working class sample. // Neurocirugia (Astur). - 2011 - Jun. - Vol. 22. - N. 3. - P. 235-244.
11. McGirt M.J., Ambrossi G.L., Datoo G. et al. Recurrent disc herniation and long-term back pain after primary lumbar discectomy: review of outcomes reported for limited versus aggressive disc removal. // Neurosurgery. - 2009 - Feb. - Vol. 64. - N. 2. - P. 338-345.
12. Moliterno J.A., Knopman J., Parikh K. et al. Results and risk factors for recurrence following single-level tubular lumbar microdiscectomy. // J. Neurosurg. Spine. - 2010 - Jun. - Vol. 12. - N. 6. - P. 680-686.
13. Loupasis G. A., Stamos K., Paul G. et al. Seven-to 20-Year Outcome of Lumbar Discectomy. // SPINE. - Nov. - 1999 - Vol. 24. - N. 22. - P. 2313-2317.
14. Regis W. Haid, Jr., Mark R. McLaughlin, Rishard G. Fessler. Chapter 1. // Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques Cages, Dowels, and Grafts. - Quality Medical Publishing Inc. - ST. Louis Missouri. - 2002. - P. 3.
15. Schaller B. Failed back surgery syndrome: the role of symptomatic segmental single-level instability after lumbar microdiscectomy. // Eur. Spine J. - 2004. - May. - Vol. 13. - N. 3. - P. 193-198.
16. Wilke H., Drumm J., Haussler K. et al. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. // Eur. Spine J. - 2008. - Aug. - Vol. 17. - N. 8. - P. 1049-1056.
Review
For citations:
Bamatov A.B., Dreval O.N., Kuznetcov A.V. The influence of interspinous implant on dynamics of pain syndrome and life quality at patients with degenerative disease of lumbar spine. Russian journal of neurosurgery. 2014;(1):41-46. (In Russ.)
Views:
410
Email this article 