Long-term Results for the BacJac Interspinous Device in Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease

Aldo Spallone; Luigi Lavorato; Daniele Belvisi

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1641180

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery, Table of Contents

J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2019; 80(01): 003-007
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641180

Original Article

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Long-term Results for the BacJac Interspinous Device in Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease

Aldo Spallone

¹Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Section of Neurosurgery, Neurological Centre of Latium-Neuromed, Rome, Italy

²Department of Biomedicine, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

,

Luigi Lavorato

³Department of Neurosurgery, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

,

Daniele Belvisi

⁴NEUROMED, IRCCS Neuromed Institute, Pozzilli, Italy

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the long-term results of using the BacJac interspinous device (Pioneer Surgical Technology Inc.) in a series of patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Methods Forty-one patients undergoing lumbar surgery with implantation of a BacJac device from 2009 to 2012 were enrolled in the present study. Patients were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Scale (ODI).

Results Although all patients showed a significant improvement of the ODI score immediately after surgery, only 41% of patients showed a satisfactory outcome. We observed worse results in the patients operated on at the L3–L4 level and in whom the device was implanted in a segment different from the one where surgical decompression had been performed. Weight gain in the months after surgery was also a poor outcome-influencing factor.

Conclusions This study confirms what is already suggested in the relevant literature regarding the long-term inefficacy of the so-called dynamic stabilization devices.

Keywords

lumbar instability - lumbar stenosis - lumbar surgery

Full Text

References

References
1 Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Neroni M. , et al. Failure rates and complications of interspinous process decompression devices: a European multicenter study. Neurosurg Focus 2015; 39 (04) E14
2 Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Doulgeris JJ, Aghayev K, Lee III WE, Volkov A, Vrionis FD. Biomechanical analysis of an interspinous fusion device as a stand-alone and as supplemental fixation to posterior expandable interbody cages in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20 (02) 209-219
3 Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC. , et al; Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2013; 347: f6415
4 Eichholz KM, Fessler RG. Is the X STOP interspinous implant a safe and effective treatment for neurogenic intermittent claudication?. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2006; 2 (01) 22-23
5 Mariottini A, Pieri S, Giachi S. , et al. Preliminary results of a soft novel lumbar intervertebral prothesis (DIAM) in the degenerative spinal pathology. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 2005; 92: 129-131
6 Sénégas J, Vital JM, Pointillart V, Mangione P. Clinical evaluation of a lumbar interspinous dynamic stabilization device (the Wallis system) with a 13-year mean follow-up. Neurosurg Rev 2009; 32 (03) 335-341 ; discussion 341–342
7 Richter A, Schütz C, Hauck M, 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 2010; 19 (02) 283-289
8 Kim DH, Shanti N, Tantorski ME. , et al. Association between degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinous process fracture after interspinous process spacer surgery. Spine J 2012; 12 (06) 466-472
9 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
10 Wang H, Wang X, Chen W. , et al. Biomechanical comparison of interspinous distraction device and facet screw fixation system on the motion of lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014; 127 (11) 2078-2084
11 Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (02) 188-192
12 Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4 (06) 463-471
13 Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (06) E8
14 Puzzilli F, Gazzeri R, Galarza M. , et al. Interspinous spacer decompression (X-STOP) for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative disk disease: a multicenter study with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2014; 124: 166-174
15 Miscusi M, Trungu S, Forcato S. , et al. Long-term clinical outcomes and quality of life in elderly patients treated with interspinous devices for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Neurol Surg A 2018; 79: 139-144
16 Alfieri A, Gazzeri R, Prell J. , et al. Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements. Neurosurg Rev 2012; 35 (04) 477-484 ; discussion 484
17 Alfieri A, Gazzeri R, Prell J, Röllinghoff M. The current management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Sci 2013; 57 (02) 103-113