Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Nov 14;347:f6415.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6415.

Interspinous Process Device Versus Standard Conventional Surgical Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Interspinous Process Device Versus Standard Conventional Surgical Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Randomized Controlled Trial

Wouter A Moojen et al. BMJ. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether interspinous process device implantation is more effective in the short term than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis.

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) in the Netherlands.

Participants: 203 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group between October 2008 and September 2011; 159 participants with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized.

Interventions: 80 participants received an interspinous process device and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome at short term (eight weeks) and long term (one year) follow-up was the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score. Repeated measurements were made to compare outcomes over time.

Results: At eight weeks, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the interspinous process device group (63%, 95% confidence interval 51% to 73%) was not superior to that for standard bony decompression (72%, 60% to 81%). No differences in disability (Zurich Claudication Questionnaire; P=0.44) or other outcomes were observed between groups during the first year. The repeat surgery rate in the interspinous implant group was substantially higher (n=21; 29%) than that in the conventional group (n=6; 8%) in the early post-surgical period (P<0.001).

Conclusions: This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional "simple" decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinous process device implantation.

Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR1307.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare that the FELIX trial was funded by Paradigm Spine/InSpine and was carried out by the Leiden-The Hague SIPS group; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Flow chart of enrollment and follow-up. IPD=interspinous process device
None
Fig 2 Scores on Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (top), modified Roland Disability Questionnaire (middle), and visual analogue scale (bottom) in two groups during follow-up. IPD=interspinous process device

Republished in

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 23 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Park SC, Yoon SH, Hong YP, Kim KJ, Chung SK, Kim HJ. Minimum 2-year follow-up result of degenerative spinal stenosis treated with interspinous u (coflex). J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009;46:292-9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK. Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med 2004;350:722-6. - PubMed
    1. Deyo RA. Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 2010;10:625-7. - PubMed
    1. Van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in the Netherlands. Pain 1995;62:233-40. - PubMed
    1. Carragee EJ. The increasing morbidity of elective spinal stenosis surgery: is it necessary? JAMA 2010;303:1309-10. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Feedback