doi: 10.3892/etm.2021.10027.
Epub 2021 Apr 9.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedics, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510030, P.R. China.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedics, The 909th Hospital of People’s Liberation Army, The Affiliated Southeast Hospital of Xiamen University, Orthopedic Center of People’s Liberation Army, Zhangzhou, Fujian 363000, P.R. China.
- 3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, P.R. China.
Item in Clipboard
Xiaoqing Zheng et al.
Exp Ther Med.
2021 Jun.
Display options
Format
doi: 10.3892/etm.2021.10027.
Epub 2021 Apr 9.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedics, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510030, P.R. China.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedics, The 909th Hospital of People’s Liberation Army, The Affiliated Southeast Hospital of Xiamen University, Orthopedic Center of People’s Liberation Army, Zhangzhou, Fujian 363000, P.R. China.
- 3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, P.R. China.
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
The current study aimed to compare the outcomes of decompression and interlaminar stabilisation with those of decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) at a minimum 8-year follow-up. The current study also aimed to analyse the risk factors of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). A total of 82 consecutive patients with LDD who underwent surgery between June 2007 and February 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 39 underwent decompression and Coflex interspinous stabilisation (Coflex group) and 43 underwent decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (PLIF group). All patients had a minimum of 8-years of follow-up data. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and the risk factors of developing radiographic ASD were also evaluated. The Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale leg and back pain scores of both groups significantly improved compared with the baseline (all P<0.05), and no difference were indicated between the two groups at each follow-up time point (P>0.05). The Coflex group exhibited preserved mobility (P<0.001), which was associated with a decreased amount of blood loss (P<0.001), shorter duration of surgery (P=0.001), shorter duration of hospital stay and a lower incidence of ASD (12.8 vs. 32.56%; P=0.040) compared with the fusion group. The current study indicated that coflex and fusion technologies are safe and effective for the treatment of LDD, based on long-term follow-up data. However, Coflex interspinous stabilisation was revealed to reduce ASD incidence. Under strict indications, Coflex interspinous stabilisation is an effective and safe treatment method.
Keywords:
adjacent segment degeneration; decompression; fusion; interlaminar stabilisation; lumbar degenerative disease.
Copyright: © Zheng et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of Coflex interspinous stabilization following decompression compared with decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A minimum 5-year follow-up study.
Yuan W, Su QJ, Liu T, Yang JC, Kang N, Guan L, Hai Y.
Yuan W, et al.
J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Jan;35:24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.030. Epub 2016 Nov 1.
J Clin Neurosci. 2017.PMID: 27815024
-
Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article.
Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H, Errico TJ.
Davis R, et al.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Aug;19(2):174-84. doi: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12636. Epub 2013 May 31.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013.PMID: 23725394
Clinical Trial.
-
Decompression alone versus fusion and Coflex in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A network meta-analysis.
Fan Y, Zhu L.
Fan Y, et al.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Mar;99(11):e19457. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019457.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020.PMID: 32176077
Free PMC article. -
Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li AM, Li X, Yang Z.
Li AM, et al.
Int J Surg. 2017 Apr;40:60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.056. Epub 2017 Feb 22.
Int J Surg. 2017.PMID: 28254421
Review.
-
Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Yoo RI, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML.
Machado GC, et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 1;11(11):CD012421. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012421.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016.PMID: 27801521
Free PMC article.Review.
Cite