Retrospective Analysis of coflex : Long-term Cohort in 240 Patients

Similar documents
Get back to: my life. Non-fusion treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

3D titanium interbody fusion cages sharx. White Paper

PARADIGM SPINE. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion. Interlaminar Stabilization

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study

5/19/2017. Interspinous Process Fixation with the Minuteman G3. What is the Minuteman G3. How Does it Work?

Systematic review Cervical artificial disc replacement versus fusion in the cervical spine: a systematic review (...)

Interlaminar Decompression & Stabilization. Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

Interspinous Fusion Devices. Midterm results. ROME SPINE 2012, 7th International Meeting Rome, 6-7 December 2012

Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis An Evidence Based Medicine Approach

Spine Tango annual report 2012

A Structural Service Plan: Towards Better and Safer Spine Surgeries. Department of Orthopaedics & Traumatology Tuen Mun Hospital

PARADIGM SPINE. Patient Information. Treatment of a Narrow Lumbar Spinal Canal

Evidence Table. Study Type: Randomized controlled trial. Study Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the X-Stop interspinous implant.

ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement. IDE Clinical Study.

Cervical Degenerative Disease - Surgical Approaches to CSM 가톨릭의대인천성모병원척추센터 김종태

Coflex TM for Lumbar Stenosis with

PARADIGM SPINE. Brochure. coflex-f Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion

Non-Operative Management of Low Back Pain in the Elderly

Prodisc-L. Retrospective Clinical Study: 7 to 11 Year Follow-up.

SPINAL CORD CONCUSSION. Stephan du Plessis MD

Common fracture & dislocation of the cervical spine. Theerachai Apivatthakakul Department of Orthopaedic Chiangmai University

Am I eligible for the TOPS study? Possibly, if you suffer from one or more of the following conditions:

2/5/2019. Facet Joint Pain. Biomechanics

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Interbody Fusion Stratified by Preoperative Diagnosis

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Lumbar Facet Joint Replacement

5/27/2016. Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) vs. Supplemental Fixation. Disclosures. LLIF Approach

PARADIGM SPINE. Interlaminar Technology. Interlaminar Implant

PROF. EPIMENIO RAMUNDO ORLANDO

LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS

The ABC s of LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE

Comprehension of the common spine disorder.

coflex Interlaminar Technology

DEGENERATIVE SPINAL DISEASE PRABIN SHRESTHA ANISH M SINGH B&B HOSPITAL

Patient Selection and Lumbar Operative Interventions

Subject: Interspinous Decompression Devices for Spinal Stenosis (X Stop, Coflex) Guidance Number: MCG-222 Revision Date(s):

ACDF. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. An introduction to

Cervical Spine in Baseball

Chapter 2 Diagnostic Algorithms. 4 Traumatic Neck Pain Algorithm

Original Date: December 2015 Page 1 of 8 FOR CMS (MEDICARE) MEMBERS ONLY

POSTERIOR CERVICAL FUSION

ESI - Utilization Review Case Presentation

Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation.

*Overview of Sacroiliac Dysfunction with LBP

HIGH LEVEL - Science

Original Article Management of Single Level Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Decompression Alone or Decompression and Fusion

Comparative Analysis of outcome in patients of Lumbar Canal Stenosis undergoing decompression with and without Instrumentation

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G DIANE THOMPSON, EMPLOYEE

Cox Technic Case Report #169 published at (sent 5/9/17) 1

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Endoscopic Postrior Cervical Foraminotomy

The Role of Surgery in the Treatment of Low Back Pain and Radiculopathy. Christian Etter, MD, Spine Surgeon Zürich, Switzerland

Large L3/4 Free Fragment

Gillian Wooldridge, DO Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellowship May 3, 2018

Stage Operation for Unstable Lumbar Spine Fracture- Dislocation with Incomplete Paraplegia: A Case Series

Case Report Synovial Cyst Mimicking an Intraspinal Sacral Mass

The Artificial Cervical Disc: 2016 update

Reduced invasiveness of myoarchitectonic laminectomy compared with open-door laminoplasty in patients with cervical myelopathy

High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis

DISORDERS OF THE SPINE TREATING PHYSICIAN DATA SHEET

Stand-Alone Technology. Reginald Davis, M.D., FAANS, FACS Director of Clinical Research

GECO 2010 LES-ARCS FRANCE LP-ESP II Elastic Spine PAD2 FH-ORTHOPEDICS

A Surgeon s Perspective for the Primary Care Physician Stephen Curtin M.D. Tucson Orthopeadic Institute

Peggers Super Summaries: The Aging Spine

Samir Lapsiwala, MD. Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute GEN-SP-32

MAS TLIF MAXIMUM ACCESS SURGERY TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AN INTRODUCTION TO

Cervical Motion Preservation

"D10-D11 Facet enlargement"

University of Groningen. Thoracolumbar spinal fractures Leferink, Vincentius Johannes Maria

The ABC s of LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE

A Patient s Guide to Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement

Lumbar Discectomy and Decompression INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURGERY

RN(EC) ENC(C) GNC(C) MN ACNP *** MECHANISM OF INJURY.. MOST IMPORTANT ***

SWESPINE THE SWEDISH SPINE REGISTER 2010 REPORT

Jessica Jameson MD Post Falls, ID

Cervical intervertebral disc disease Degenerative diseases F 04

DISCLOSURES. Goal of Fusion. Expandable Cages: Do they play a role in lumbar MIS surgery? CON 2/15/2017

405 Firemans Ave LaVale, Maryland 21502

Key Primary CPT Codes: Refer to pages: 7-9 Last Review Date: October 2016 Medical Coverage Guideline Number:

Michael McMurray, DC Campbell, CA presentation at San Jose Cox Seminar September 2013

Incidence and Risk Factors for Late Neurologic Deterioration after C3-6 Laminoplasty in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Alan H Daniels, MD. Spine Division, Department of Orthopaedics Warren Alpert School of Medicine of Brown University

New York Science Journal 2017;10(8)

Original Date: October 2015 LUMBAR SPINAL FUSION FOR

UPPER CERVICAL MYELOPATHY WITH METATROPIC DYSPLASIA

Safety, Outcomes, and Cost Effectiveness of Outpatient Cervical ArthroplastieS

Instructions for use Prodisc -C Vivo Cervical disc prosthesis

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM), using permanent foramen S3 electrode, Early versus late treatment of voiding dysfunction with pelvic neuromodulation

Facet Joint Arthrosis Disc Degeneration and Lumbago. Dr.Ruchira Sethi Dr. Vishram Singh Department of Anatomy Santosh University, India

Role of Posterior Fixation Technique in Surgeries for Pathological Fractures of the Dorsal and Lumbar Spine Secondary to Neoplastic Causes

Cervical Spine Surgery: Approach related outcome

Degenerative joint disease of the shoulder, while

Lumbar spinal stenosis is narrowing of the spinal canal that results in compression of the cauda

SUBAXIAL CERVICAL SPINE TRAUMA- DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT

Corporate Medical Policy

Degenerative Disease of the Spine

Outcome of Girdlestone s resection arthroplasty following complications of proximal femoral fractures

Western Orthopedics, PC Denver, CO Presbyterian/St. Luke s Medical Center

Minimally Invasive Discectomy/ Decompression

Long term prognosis of young adults after ACDF

Transcription:

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 Formations Subchondral bone cysts Capsule/Ligament Relaxation Subluxations Hypothesis: coflex allows for Stabilization after neural Decompression reducing Back Pain without Fusion. Implantation of coflex reduces the ROM in Extension undloading the Facet Joints and maintaing foraminal Height.

Implantation Technique brings Implant close to anatomical COR Implant Design increases this Effect Range of Motion of Facet Joints can be controlled Rotational Forces influenced due to Wing Concept Large Contact Surface New Possibilites for Therapy of Facet Arthrosis

Retrospective Data Analysis: Patient Accountability Patients Identified (Total number) Evaluable Patients (CRFs and x-rays completed) % Follow-Up Median Follow Up for evaluable patients (months) To Be Scheduled Refused Follow-Up Deceased Unable To Locate Other 24 26 86 % 4.5 6 4 24

Accountability Flow Chart Patients with Completed CRF s and X rays 26 ( %) Topping Off 2 (6 %) Stenosis 54 (75 %) HNP 4 (9 %)

54 Patients Treatment Subgroups Group I : level decompression - coflex Group II : 2 levels decompression - 2 coflex Group III : 2 levels decompression - coflex Group IV : Additional * 27 8 8 * 2 level implantation and level decompression- 2, level implantation and 3 level decompression 3, 2 level implantation and 3 level decompression 2, 2 level implantation and 4 level decompression

Preoperative walking distance <m in 89% of the patients N= 54 I ( n= ) II (n= 27) III (n= 8) IV (n=8) < 2 m 4 (26. %) 8 (5.2 %) (7. %) 5 (3.2 %) Preoperative Walking Distance > 3 m 46 (29.9 %) 8 (.7 %) 6 (3.9 %) 3 (.9 %) Percent calculation relative to total spinal stenosis population > m (6.5 %) (.6 %) (.6 %) ( %) >2 m 5 (3.2 %) ( %) ( %) ( %)

Walking Distance Improvement of 87% (>m) Postoperative Walking Distance N= 54 Improved Same Worse Total (n=54) 34 (87. %) 9 (2.3 %) (.6 %) I (n= ) 85 5 II (n= 27 ) 24 3 III (n= 8) 7 IV (n=8) 8

Moderate and severe LBP in 59% (92/54) N= 54 None Preoperative Low Back Pain mild moderate severe I (n= ) 26 (6.9 %) 2 (3. %) 44 (28.6 %) (7. %) II (n= 27) 5 (3.2 %) 2 (.3 %) 7 (. %) 3 (.9 %) III (n= 8) 3 (.9 %) 4 (2.6 %) (6.5 %) (.6 %) IV (n=8) (.6 %) (.6 %) 4 (2.6 %) 2 (.3 %) Percent calculation relative to total spinal stenosis population

Postoperative LBP Total # Improved No Pain Same Worse Total (n=92) 66 (7.7%) 37 (4.2 %) 22 (23.9 %) 4 (4.3 %) I (n=55) 39 (7.9 %) 8 (32.7 %) 5 (6.3%) (.8 %) II (n=2) 3 (65.%) 9 (45) 4 (4.2%) 3 (3.3%) III (n=) (9. %) 8 (72.7 %) (. %) ( %) IV (n=6) 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3 %) 2 (2.2 %) ( %)

Reintervention I (n= ) II (n= 27) III (n= 8) IV (n=8) CSF Leak Seroma (.6 %) (.6 %) Deep Infection Superficial Infection Wound Dehiscence Fusion Needed 2 (.3 %) (.6 %) HNP (Recurrent) (.6 %) HNP (New Level) (.6 %) Other Percentages relative to total stenosis patients

Worsening Neurological Motor (.6 %) Sensory (.6 %) (.6 %) Reflex New Deficit Neurological Motor Sensory Reflex Percententages relative to total stenosis patients

out of 54 patients had adverse events not related to the coflex device (6.5%) Non of the adverse events were significant or caused a dramatic permanent change in patient function No postoperative CSF leaks No deep or superficial infections No wound healing problems Safety Data

Device Related N= 54 I (n= ) II (n= 27) III (n= 8) IV (n=8) Broken U Deformed U Dislocated U Migrated U (.6 %) Broken Wing Spinous Process Fx Removed U 2 (.3 %)

Extremely low rate of device related complications No broken implant No plasitcally deformed implant No dislocations Secure enough fixation to prevent extrusion Two implant removals (.3%) Neither of the removals were secondary to device failures

Patient Satisfaction = 9 % N= 54 Very Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied I (n=) 56 (55.4 %) 35 (34.7 %) (9.9 %) II (n=27) 5 (55.6 %) 9 (33.3 %) 3 (. %) III (n=7)* 2 (7.6 %) 5 (29.4 %) ( %) IV (n=8) 7 (87.5 %) (2.5 %) ( %) Percent calculation relative to subgroups * missing response

Patient Satisfaction remains stable over time N= 54 Very Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied 6 to 2 mo (n= 58) 35 (6.3 %) 9 (32.8 %) 4 (6.9 %) >2 to 24 mo (n= 53) 3 (56.6 %) 7 (32. %) 5 (9.4 %) > 24 mo (n= 43) 25 (58. %) 4 (32.6 %) 4 (9.3 %) Percent calculation relative to subgroups Total: 9%

Would you have surgery again? N= 53 * I (n=) II (n= 27) III (n=7) IV (n=8) Yes 94 (93. %) 26 (96.3 %) 7 ( %) 8 ( %) No 7 (6.9 %) (3.7 %) ( %) ( %) Percent calculation relative to subgroups * missing response YES = 94,2 %

Summary 72% Improvement of low back pain 4% showed complete relief Significant improvement of walking distance 89% of patients preop < m 87% of patients showed improvement postop High rate of patient satisfaction 9% satisfied or very satisfied 94% would have surgery again

Conclusion Retrospectively coflex proved to be safe and effective Possibility to not only address Leg Pain but also Back Pain Prospective Data needed to verify these promising findings.