Interlaminar Decompression For Lumbar Stenosis: When is Less More?
|
|
|
- Georgia Floyd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Interlaminar Decompression For Lumbar Stenosis: When is Less More? Kris Radcliff, MD Associate Professor Department of Orthopedic Surgery Associate Professor of Neurosurgery and Hospitals The Rothman Institute Philadelphia, PA
2 Disclosures 4 Web Medical: Unpaid consultant ACSR: Board or committee member Altus Spine: Paid consultant DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid consultant; Research support; Unpaid consultant Globus Medical: IP royalties; Paid consultant; Research support LDR: Unpaid consultant Medtronic: Paid consultant; Research support NEXXT Spine: Other financial or material support Nuvasive: Other financial or material support Orthofix, Inc.: Paid consultant Orthopedic Sciences, Inc: IP royalties; Paid consultant Pacira pharmaceuticals: Research support Paradigm Spine: Research support Stryker: Other financial or material support
3 When is it too much? First do no harm
4 Pawar Neurological Research 2017
5 Outline Favorable Data
6 3 Year IDE Data IDE study, 36 Month Data 21 sites, Coflex vs Fusion Both groups improved N=322, 90% followup 3 years K-M Analysis Device survival: 86% ILS vs 88% Fusion Reoperation and epidurals: 76% vs 79% Fusion Bae Neurosurgery 2016
7 3 Year IDE Data Among event free patients, 89.6% of ILS and 75.7% of fusion patients experienced at least 15 point improvement in ODI Of the spondy patients, 59.3% ILS vs 59.5% fusion met success criteria Recommend: 96% vs 84% Satisfied: 95% vs 86% Bae Neurosurgery 2016
8 3 Year IDE Data 13% vs 12% Reop Rate 8% ASD in Fusion Cohort Bae Neurosurgery 2016
9 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Subanalysis of Coflex IDE data 99 Degenerative Spondy Coflex vs 51 Fusion Outcomes mostly equivalent 14% reop rate in Coflex vs 5.9% in fusion control Davis JNS Spine 2013
10 5 Year IDE Data Musacchio IJSS 2016 PRCT, n=322, No Significant Difference in Success Criteria (50% ILS vs 44% Fusion) Reoperation Rate 16% ILS vs 18% Fusion 5 Years: 68% ILS vs 66% Fusion patients free of secondary surgery or epidural
11 Coflex for Stenosis SWISSSPINE Registry N=50 matched pairs with stenosis and LBP Coflex vs Laminectomy Superior outcome in Coflex group
12 Non IDE Data N=67, consecutive, unconflicted Pawar Neurological Research 2017
13 IDE Cost Study Data from Coflex IDE used in base case analysis Coflex Higher Utility and Lower Cost
14 Outline Favorable Data Unfavorable Data
15 Coflex IDE Data IDE Data
16 Coflex IDE Data Through 24 months of follow up, the overall reoperation rate was 10.7% in the group and 7.5% in the fusion control. Based on available patient data through 48 months, the coflex revision rate is 15.8% and the fusion control revision rate is 15.9%.
17 Non-IDE Data PRCT, double blind, 1 year followup, n=159, Netherlands No difference in VAS, ZCQ, RMDQ 29% reoperation rate vs 8% laminectomy Moojen BMJ 2013
18 Non-IDE Cost Data PRCT, double blind, spinal stenosis van den Akker-van Marle, TSJ 2016 Nonsignificant lower QALY Coflex Nonsignificant higher costs Coflex Not cost effective
19 Coflex Pros Lower Morbidity Less EBL OR Time LOS Easy Revision Strategy Cons Osteoporosis More Narrow Decompression? L5S1 Limited Data Multilevel Strategy Potential for Disease Progression? Higher Reoperation Rate? Cost Effectiveness
20 Conclusion Longer Followup Needed Does One Technique Fit All Which Patients Are Best Suited to Which Techniques
21 THANK YOU.
INTERSPINOUS FIXATION (FUSION) DEVICES
INTERSPINOUS FIXATION (FUSION) DEVICES Non-Discrimination Statement and Multi-Language Interpreter Services information are located at the end of this document. Coverage for services, procedures, medical
Plano, TX, 8 Senta Clinic, San Diego, CA
Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis Kaveh Khajavi, MD, FACS Alessandria Y. Shen, MSPH Anthony Hutchison, MSN Disclosures
MEDICAL POLICY. Proprietary Information of Excellus Health Plan, Inc. A nonprofit independent licensee of the BlueCross BlueShield Association
MEDICAL POLICY SUBJECT: INTERSPINOUS AND PAGE: 1 OF: 6 If a product excludes coverage for a service, it is not covered, and medical policy criteria do not apply. If a commercial product (including an Essential
Disclosures. The Value Agenda in Spine Care Steven D. Glassman, M.D. 10/14/16. AllinaHealthSystems 1. Introduction. Introduction.
The Value Agenda in Spine Care Steven D. Glassman, M.D. Professor of Orthopedic Surgery University of Louisville Norton Leatherman Spine Center Past-President, Scoliosis Research Society Medtronic Disclosures
Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation.
Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/29800 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Moojen, Wouter Anton Title: Introducing new implants and imaging techniques for
Interlaminar Decompression & Stabilization. Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research
Interlaminar Decompression & Stabilization Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research Disclosures Background Device meant to stabilize the spine without fusion following decompression
Degenerative L4-5 SPONDYLOLISTHESIS with Stenosis: Laminectomy and Postero-Lateral Fusion. Rick C. Sasso MD
Degenerative L4-5 SPONDYLOLISTHESIS with Stenosis: Laminectomy and Postero-Lateral Fusion Rick C. Sasso MD Professor Chief of Surgery Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery University School of Medicine Disclosure:
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis Kaveh Khajavi, MD, FACS Alessandria Y. Shen, MSPH Anthony Hutchison, MSN The following
Subject: Interspinous Decompression Devices for Spinal Stenosis (X Stop, Coflex) Guidance Number: MCG-222 Revision Date(s):
Subject: Interspinous Decompression Devices for Spinal Stenosis (X Stop, Coflex) Guidance Number: MCG-222 Revision Date(s): Original Effective Date: 3/16/15 DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE/SERVICE/PHARMACEUTICAL
Sigita Burneikiene, MD; Alan T. Villavicencio, MD; Alexander Mason, MD; Sharad Rajpal, MD
The Timing of Surgery and Symptom Resolu6on in Pa6ents Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenera6ve Disc Disease and Radiculopathy Sigita Burneikiene, MD; Alan T. Villavicencio,
Corporate Medical Policy
Corporate Medical Policy Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices File Name: Origination: Last CAP Review: Next CAP Review: Last Review: interspinous_and_interlaminar_stabilization-distraction_devices
Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With spinal stenosis and up to grade I spondylolisthesis
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (701107) Medical Benefit Effective Date: 10/01/17 Next Review Date: 07/19 Preauthorization No Review Dates: 07/07, 07/08, 09/09, 09/10, 07/11,
Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis An Evidence Based Medicine Approach
Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis An Evidence Based Medicine Approach H A L L E T T M AT H E W S, M D, M B A E V P, C H I E F M E D I C A L O F F I C E R W i l l i a m s b u r g, VA From Quantity To
ILIF Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion. Anton Thompkins, M.D.
ILIF Interlaminar Lumbar Instrumented Fusion Anton Thompkins, M.D. Anton Thompkins, M.D. EDUCATION: BS, Biology, DePauw University, Greencastle, IN MD, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine RESIDENCY:
The Coflex vs. Fusion U.S. I.D.E. Trial An in vivo Biomechanical Study of Adjacent Segment Motion following Fusion
The Coflex vs. Fusion U.S. I.D.E. Trial An in vivo Biomechanical Study of Adjacent Segment Motion following Fusion W.R. Sears 1, R.J. Davis 2, J.D. Auerbach 3 1 Wentworth Spine Clinic, Sydney, Australia,
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (Spacers)
Federal Employee Program 1310 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 202.942.1000 Fax 202.942.1125 7.01.107 Page: 1 of 12 Last Review Status/Date: June 2015 Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction
Matthew Colman, MD Assistant Professor, Spine Surgery and Musculoskeletal Oncology Rush University Medical Center ACDF
is the most reliable option for twolevel anterior cervical surgery Matthew Colman, MD Assistant Professor, Spine Surgery and Musculoskeletal Oncology Rush University Medical Center Disclosures Medicrea:
2013 UCSF SPINE SYMPOSIUM RICHARD DEYO, MD MPH MICHAEL GROFF, MD
2013 UCSF SPINE SYMPOSIUM RICHARD DEYO, MD MPH MICHAEL GROFF, MD OHSU Professor and the Kaiser- Permanente Endowed Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine in the Department of Family Medicine at Oregon Health
DISCLOSURES. Goal of Fusion. Expandable Cages: Do they play a role in lumbar MIS surgery? CON 2/15/2017
Expandable Cages: Do they play a role in lumbar MIS surgery? CON Jean-Jacques Abitbol, M.D., FRCSC San Diego, California DISCLOSURES SAB; K2M, Osprey, Nanovis, Vertera, St Theresa Royalties; Osprey, K2M,
Christopher I. Shaffrey, MD
CSRS 21st Instructional Course Wednesday, November 30, 2016 Laminoplasty/Foraminotomy: Why Fuse the Spine at all? Christopher I. Shaffrey, MD John A. Jane Distinguished Professor Departments of Neurosurgery
Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Jacob M. Buchowski, M.D., M.S. Professor of Orthopaedic and Neurological Surgery Director, Washington University Spine Fellowship Director, Center for Spinal
Outpatient Spine Surgery: The Next Five Years. Richard Wohns, M.D., JD, MBA Neospine, Puget Sound Region, Washington
Outpatient Spine Surgery: The Next Five Years Richard Wohns, M.D., JD, MBA Neospine, Puget Sound Region, Washington Disclosures Aqueduct Neurosciences, Board of Directors angelmd, Chief Medical Officer
Get back to: my life. Non-fusion treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis
Get back to: my life Non-fusion treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis Do you have any of these symptoms? numbness, weakness or pain in the lower legs When any of these conditions occur, the spinal nerve,
MP Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (Spacers)
Medical Policy MP 7.01.107 BCBSA Ref. Policy: 7.01.107 Last Review: 04/25/2017 Effective Date: 04/25/017 Section: Surgery End Date: 06/26/2017 Related Policies 7.01.120 Facet Arthroplasty 7.01.138 Interspinous
Since the classic article from Herkowitz and Kurz4
J Neurosurg Spine 19:174 184, 2013 AANS, 2013 Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical
Original Policy Date 12/2013
MP 7.01.87 Interspinous Distraction Devices (Spacers) Medical Policy Section Surgery I12/2013ssue 12:2012 Original Policy Date 12/2013 Last Review Status/Date Reviewed with literature search/12/2013 Return
Unanswered Questions. Laminoplasty is best
Laminoplasty is best Wellington K. Hsu, MD Clifford C. Raisbeck Distinguished Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery Director of Research Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Northwestern University Feinberg School
Segmental stability following minimally invasive decompressive surgery with tubular retractor for lumbar spinal stenosis
Segmental stability following minimally invasive decompressive surgery with tubular retractor for lumbar spinal stenosis Department of Spinal surgery, Research Institute for Brain and Blood Vessels-Akita
Outpatient Minimally Invasive TLIFs with Stand-Alone Expandable Interbody Devices. Richard N.W. Wohns, M.D., J.D., MBA
Outpatient Minimally Invasive TLIFs with Stand-Alone Expandable Interbody Devices Richard N.W. Wohns, M.D., J.D., MBA Richard N.W. Wohns, MD, JD, MBA Education & Training Seattle University, School of
MEDICAL POLICY. Proprietary Information of Excellus Health Plan, Inc. A nonprofit independent licensee of the BlueCross BlueShield Association
MEDICAL POLICY SUBJECT: INTERSPINOUS AND PAGE: 1 OF: 8 If a product excludes coverage for a service, it is not covered, and medical policy criteria do not apply. If a commercial product, including an Essential
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices (Spacers)
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices (Spacers) Policy Number: 7.01.107 Last Review: 9/2017 Origination: 2/2007 Next Review: 9/2018 Policy Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas
Prospective Data Collection Provider Perspective
Prospective Data Collection Provider Perspective Zoher Ghogawala, M.D. Chairman and Associate Professor Department of Neurosurgery Lahey Clinic Tufts University School of Medicine Science of Clinical Practice
Evidence Table. Study Type: Randomized controlled trial. Study Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the X-Stop interspinous implant.
Evidence Table Clinical Area: Reference: Spinal decompression device for lumbar spinal stenosis Zucherman JF et al. A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis
Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with
Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with Segmental Instability : 1 yr outcomes Eun-Sang Kim, M.D., Ph.D. Clinical Professor Dept of Neurosurgery Samsung Medical Center Seoul, Korea Surgery for Spinal Stenosis
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices (Spacers)
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices (Spacers) Policy Number: 7.01.107 Last Review: 9/2014 Origination: 2/2007 Next Review: 9/2015 Policy Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas
Protocol. Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (Spacers)
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (701107) Medical Benefit Effective Date: 10/01/13 Next Review Date: 07/15 Preauthorization No Review Dates: 07/07, 07/08, 09/09, 09/10, 07/11,
Radiographic Outcome and Complications after Single-level Lumbar Extended Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for Fixed Sagittal Malalignment:
Radiographic Outcome and Complications after Single-level Lumbar Extended Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for Fixed Sagittal Malalignment: Traditional A PSO Retrospective Analysis of 55 Adult Spinal Deformity
EBM. Comparative outcomes of Minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion. Fellow 陳磊晏
EBM Comparative outcomes of Minimally invasive surgery for posterior lumbar fusion Fellow 陳磊晏 Knee scope Shoulder scope MIS THR MIS TKR Trauma MIS Spine surgery 骨科微創手術 Size Dose Matter!? Minimal invasive
Abstract Study Design Retrospective review of prospectively gathered data.
640 Original Article GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL THIEME Perioperative Complications of Cervical Spine Surgery: Analysis of a Prospectively Gathered Database through the Association for Collaborative Spinal Research
ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study.
ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study. A multi-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Instruments and implants approved by the AO Foundation Table of Contents Indications, Contraindications
Medical Policy An independent licensee of the
Interspinous Fixation (Fusion) Devices Page 1 of 8 Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Title: See Also: Interspinous Fixation (Fusion) Devices Lumbar Spine Fusion http://www.bcbsks.com/customerservice/providers/medicalpolicies/policies.shtml
OLIF: OBLIQUE LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION. Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL
OLIF: OBLIQUE LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD Rush University Medical Center Chicago, IL DISCLOSURE Royalty DePuy, Stryker Professional Societies President: ISMISS Vice President: SICCMI
When is Degenerative Disease Really Deformity
When is Degenerative Disease Really Deformity Cabo State of Spine Surgery Think Tank June 2017 Gurvinder S. Deol, MD Wake Orthopaedics/WakeMed Health and Hospitals Clinical Assistant Professor Department
PARADIGM SPINE. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Interlaminar Stabilization
PARADIGM SPINE Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Interlaminar Stabilization 2 A UNIQUE MIS ALTERNATIVE TO PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION The Gold Standard The combined use of surgical decompression and different
5/27/2016. Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation. Disclosures. LLIF Approach
Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation Joseph M. Zavatsky, M.D. Spine & Scoliosis Specialists Tampa, FL Disclosures Consultant - Zimmer / Biomet, DePuy Synthes Spine,
Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Minimally Invasive Approaches: How to Choose
Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Minimally Invasive Approaches: How to Choose Lukas P. Zebala, MD Assistant Professor Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO Disclosures Consultant: K2M, Inc.
Two-Level Cervical Total Disc Replacement versus ACDF: Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial with 48 Months Follow-up
Two-Level Cervical Total Disc Replacement versus : Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Trial with 48 Follow-up Prof Jean Paul Steib 1, MD; Reginald Davis, MD 2 1 Spine Surgery Dept, University
Adverse events in adult spinal deformity procedures.
Adverse events in adult spinal deformity procedures. Evalina L BURGER*, Michael S CHANG**, Sean MOLLOY*** Vincent FIERE**** * Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado,Aurora, USA ** Department
All Posterior Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity
All Posterior Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity Michael P. Kelly, MD, MS Washington University, Saint Louis, MO Spine Master s Course May 18, 2017 Disclosures Research Support Paid to Washington University
Background Information
Background Information Age plays an important role in patients selection for spinal surgeries as it is associated with increased morbidity and mortality Consequences of suffering postoperative complications
PARADIGM SPINE. Interlaminar Technology. Interlaminar Implant
PARADIGM SPINE Interlaminar Technology Interlaminar Implant SPINAL STENOSIS WITH BACK PAIN THE RATIONALE FOR STABILIZATION For the treatment of spinal stenosis, surgeons have various treatment options.
Artificial Intervertebral Disc
Medical Policy Manual Surgery, Policy No. 127 Artificial Intervertebral Disc Next Review: February 2019 Last Review: September 2018 Effective: October 1, 2018 IMPORTANT REMINDER Medical Policies are developed
Clinical Outcome in Lumbar Decompression Surgery for Spinal Canal Stenosis in the Aged Population
Clinical Outcome in Lumbar Decompression Surgery for Spinal Canal Stenosis in the Aged Population Kleinstück FS1, Ulrich NH2, Woernle C2, Winklhofer S3, Burgstaller JM4, Farshad M2, Oberle J5, Porchet
Patient Selection and Lumbar Operative Interventions
Patient Selection and Lumbar Operative Interventions John C France MD Professor of Orthopaedic & Neurosurgery West Virginia University Low back pain is a symptom not a diagnosis Epidemiology of LBP General
PROF. EPIMENIO RAMUNDO ORLANDO
PROF. EPIMENIO RAMUNDO ORLANDO Lumbar Spinal Stenosis - Definition N.I.C. caused by lumbar stenosis was firstly described by Verbiest (1954)*1 and is characterized by contemporary single or multiple factors:
Jeremy Fairbank MD FRCS Professor of Spine Surgery NDORMS University of Oxford
Towards a paradigm shift in chronic low back pain? Identification of patient profiles to guide treatment Surgery and combined physical and psychological treatment as competitive treatment options for all
Top spine papers of 2016
Top spine papers of 2016 Ai Mukai, MD Texas Orthopedics, Sports & Rehabilitation University of Texas-Austin, PM&R Residency October 21, 2016 Top papers in spine? Top papers in Spine How do you define top?
Corporate Medical Policy
Corporate Medical Policy Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Decompression (IG-MLD) for File Name: Origination: Last CAP Review: Next CAP Review: Last Review: image-guided_minimally_invasive_decompression_for_spinal_stenosis
The Artificial Cervical Disc: 2016 update
The Artificial Cervical Disc: 2016 update Anthony K. Frempong-Boadu, MD Associate Professor Co-Director NYU Langone Spine Center Director - Division of Spinal Surgery Department of Neurosurgery New York
PODIUM PRESENTATONS 6 minute presentations
THURSDAY 1.01 0007 1.02 0013 1.03 0072 1.04 0093 Do Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Patients Recall Their Preoperative Status? Recall Bias in Patient-Reported Outcomes Trends and Costs of Lumbar Fusion
PRIMARY STUDIES EN BLOC VERSUS DEBULKING
PRIMARY STUDIES EN BLOC VERSUS DEBULKING I Study ID II Method III Patient characteristics IV Intervention(s) V Results primary outcome VI Results secondary and other outcome(s) VII Critical appraisal of
THORACO-LUMBAR STENOSIS
THORACO-LUMBAR STENOSIS COX PAR T 3 NAS HVIL L E, TN OCTOBER 8-9, 2011 KU R T J. OL D ING D.C. MINSTER, OH INTRODUCTION This case is a premium example of seeing the whole picture before clinical decisions
Lumbar Laminotomy DEFINING APPROPRIATE COVERAGE POSITIONS NASS COVERAGE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TASKFORCE
NASS COVERAGE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Lumbar Laminotomy DEFINING APPROPRIATE COVERAGE POSITIONS North American Spine Society 7075 Veterans Blvd. Burr Ridge, IL 60527 TASKFORCE Introduction North American
Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. Brigham and Women s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: the influence of spondylolisthesis stage (disc height and static and dynamic translation) on clinical outcomes
Improving Pa-ent Value and Outcomes with Effec-ve MIS Spine Technology
Improving Pa-ent Value and Outcomes with Effec-ve MIS Spine Technology A discussion on innova-ve technology for spinal stenosis Richard A. Kube II, MD, FACSS, FAAOS, CIME CEO, Founder, Prairie Spine &
Overview. Target Audience
The David B. Levine, MD HSS Spine Symposium June 10, 2016 Provided by the Hospital for Special Surgery Spine Service and the Office of Continuing Medical Education Overview Care of the patient with cervical
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 191/2 Interspinous distraction procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis causing neurogenic claudication Consultation Comments table IPAC date: 9 th September
Lumbar total disc replacement
The Norwegian TDR Study Lumbar total disc replacement Predictors for long-term outcome Background Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is a surgical option for selected patients with chronic low back pain
ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study
Total Disc Replacement IDE Clinical Study Study Design TDR vs. circumferential fusion: Multi-center, prospective, randomized trial 17 centers, 292 patients 162 patients 80 fusion patients 50 non-randomized
Facet Arthroplasty. Policy Number: Last Review: 9/2018 Origination: 9/2009 Next Review: 3/2019
Facet Arthroplasty Policy Number: 7.01.120 Last Review: 9/2018 Origination: 9/2009 Next Review: 3/2019 Policy Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City (Blue KC) will not provide coverage for total facet
This procedure lacks scientific evidence of effectiveness, and is not covered.
ARBenefits Approval: 09-21-2011 Effective Date: 01-01-2012 Revision Date: Code(s): 0275T Medical Policy Title: Minimally Invasive, Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression for Spinal Stenosis Document: ARB0186
Pasquale Donnarumma 1, Roberto Tarantino 1, Lorenzo Nigro 1, Marika Rullo 2, Domenico Messina 3, Daniele Diacinti 4, Roberto Delfini 1.
Original Study Decompression versus decompression and fusion for degenerative lumbar stenosis: analysis of the factors influencing the outcome of back pain and disability Pasquale Donnarumma 1, Roberto
Arthroscopic Transosseous versus Transosseous equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Cost and Outcome Analysis
Arthroscopic Transosseous versus Transosseous equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Cost and Outcome Analysis Adam J. Seidl, MD; Nicholas J. Lombardi, BS; Mark D. Lazarus, MD; Eric M. Black, MD;
Corporate Medical Policy
Corporate Medical Policy File Name: Origination: Last CAP Review: Next CAP Review: Last Review: artificial_intervertebral_disc 4/2004 10/2017 10/2018 10/2017 Description of Procedure or Service During
Interspinous Process Spacer Devices
Medical Coverage Policy Interspinous Process Spacer Devices Table of Contents Effective Date... 04/15/2018 Next Review Date... 04/15/2019 Coverage Policy Number... 0448 Related Coverage Resources Coverage
MEDICAL POLICY MEDICAL POLICY DETAILS POLICY STATEMENT. Page: 1 of 5
Page: 1 of 5 MEDICAL POLICY MEDICAL POLICY DETAILS Medical Policy Title LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION Policy Number 7.01.97 Category Technology Assessment Effective Date 06/21/18 Revised Date 12/20/18 Product Disclaimer
Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (IG-MLD) for Spinal Stenosis
Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Last Review Status/Date: June 2013 Page: 1 of 10 Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (IG-MLD) for Spinal Stenosis Description Image-guided minimally
BSD Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques Publish Ahead of Print DOI: /BSD.0b013e31827b671f
BSD Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques Publish Ahead of Print DOI:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31827b671f Two-Year Evaluation of the X-STOP Interspinous Spacer in Different Primary Patient Populations with
Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With lumbar spinal stenosis
Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Decompression for Spinal (701126) (Formerly Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression for Spinal ) Medical Benefit Effective Date: 10/01/17 Next Review Date:
Retrospective Analysis of coflex : Long-term Cohort in 240 Patients
Retrospective Analysis of coflex : Long-term Cohort in 24 Patients Dieter Adelt Damp, Germany Degenerative Spinal Stenosis Disease of Facet Joints! Damaged Cartilage Synovitis / Synovial Cysts Osteophyte
Patients with lumbar stenosis often suffer from. BROCA s AREA. Randomized Controlled Trials
J Neurosurg Spine 26:260 266, 2017 Neurosurgical Forum BROCA s AREA Randomized controlled trials for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: which patients benefit from lumbar fusion? Zoher Ghogawala, MD,
Sven Schmidt, MD, 1 Joerg Franke, MD, 2 Michael Rauschmann, MD, 1 Dieter Adelt, MD, 3 Matteo Mario Bonsanto, MD, 4 and Steffen Sola, MD 5
CLINICAL ARTICLE J Neurosurg Spine 28:406 415, 2018 Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization
2019 COLLECTION TYPE: MIPS CLINICAL QUALITY MEASURES (CQMS) MEASURE TYPE: Patient Reported Outcome High Priority
Quality ID #460: Average Change in Back Pain Following Lumbar Fusion National Quality Strategy Domain: Person and Caregiver-Centered Experience and Outcomes Meaningful Measure Area: Patient Reported Functional
Clinical Policy Title: Interspinous dynamic stabilization devices
Clinical Policy Title: Interspinous dynamic stabilization devices Clinical Policy Number: 14.02.07 Effective Date: April 1, 2016 Initial Review Date: November 18, 2015 Most Recent Review Date: January
PARADIGM SPINE. Brochure. coflex-f Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion
PARADIGM SPINE Brochure coflex-f Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion coflex-f THE UNIQUE, MINIMALLY INVASIVE FUSION DEVICE The coflex-f implant is designed to deliver surgeon confidence and patient satisfaction.
Comparative Analysis of outcome in patients of Lumbar Canal Stenosis undergoing decompression with and without Instrumentation
Document heading doi: 10.21276/apjhs.2017.4.1.18 Research Article Comparative Analysis of outcome in patients of Lumbar Canal Stenosis undergoing decompression with without Instrumentation ABSTRACT Sanjay
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 i. Global Spinal Implants Market... ES-3 Ii. Methodology... ES-3
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 i.... ES-3 Ii. Methodology... ES-3 Exhibit ES-1:, Combined Sales, 2015-2020... ES-4 Exhibit ES-2: 2015,, Share by Segment... ES-5 1. CLINICAL OVERVIEW... 1-1
U.S. MARKET FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE SPINAL IMPLANTS
U.S. MARKET FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE SPINAL IMPLANTS idata_usmis15_rpt Published in December 2014 By idata Research Inc., 2014 idata Research Inc. Suite 308 4211 Kingsway Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada,
Report for the APOA- Depuy Spine Clinical Fellowship 2014
Report for the APOA- Depuy Spine Clinical Fellowship 2014 Fellow: Dr Guoquan Zheng, MD Associate professor, Department of orthopedic The General Hospital of Chinese PLA 28 Fuxing Road Beijing 100853, P.
What s new in INCISIVE MD? Who should read these release notes?
August 2015 Contents What s new in INCISIVE MD? Who should read these release notes? New Custom Treatments for Intralaminar Devices Personalized Consultants Surgical planning patient consultations Preoperative
Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine Page 1 of 23 Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Title: See also: Artificial Intervertebral Disc: Cervical Spine
Scoliosis and interspinous decompression with the X-STOP: prospective minimum 1-year outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis
The Spine Journal 10 (2010) 972 978 Clinical Study Scoliosis and interspinous decompression with the X-STOP: prospective minimum 1-year outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis Kevin W. Rolfe, MD, MPH a, *,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES PROGRAMME Interventional procedure overview of lateral interbody fusion in the lumbar spine for low back pain As a person gets
Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With lumbar spinal stenosis
Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Decompression for Spinal (701126) Medical Benefit Effective Date: 10/01/18 Next Review Date: 07/19 Preauthorization No Review Dates: 09/10, 07/11, 07/12, 07/13, 07/14, 07/15,
From Becker s ASC Review
SURGERY CENTER The Future of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Why a Spine-Focused ASC is Important Richard Hynes, MD From Becker s ASC Review According to Naya Kehayes, managing principal and CEO of Eveia
INTERSPINOUS STABILIZATION-FUSION IN THE UNSTABLE SPINE.
INTERSPINOUS STABILIZATION-FUSION IN THE UNSTABLE SPINE. A PRELIMINARY REPORT F. POSTACCHINI, A. PALMESI LUMBAR VERTEBRAL INSTABILITY Still the subject of discussion Variously defined and interpreted Postacchini
Responses to Key Questions for Washington State Health Care Authority Health Technology Assessment of Surgery for Symptomatic Lumbar Radiculopathy
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves (DSPN), Congress of Neurological
Clinical evaluation of microendoscopy-assisted extreme lateral interbody fusion
Original Study Clinical evaluation of microendoscopy-assisted extreme lateral interbody fusion Tomohide Segawa 1, Hirohiko Inanami 1, Hisashi Koga 2 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inanami Spine and
Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Pain Physician 2018; 21:1-7 ISSN 1533-3159 Systematic Review Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review Jieliang Shen, PhD 1, Shen Xu, MD 2, Shenxi Xu,