Skip to:

Therapeutic sustainability and durability of coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a four year assessment.

Hyun W. Bae, MD,1 Carl Lauryssen, MD,2 Greg Maislin, MS, MA,3Scott Leary, MD,4 Michael J. Musacchio, Jr., MD5

1The Spine Institute, Santa Monica, CA 2Lauryssen Neurosurgical Spine Institute, Los Angeles, CA 3Biomedical Statistical Consulting, Wynnewood, PA 4Senta Clinic, San Diego, CA 5Department of Neurosurgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL.

Abstract

Background

Approved treatment modalities for the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis encompass a variety of direct and indirect methods of decompression, though all have varying degrees of limitations and morbidity which potentially limit the efficacy and durability of the treatment. The coflex® interlaminar stabilization implant (Paradigm Spine, New York, NY), examined under a United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) clinical trial, is shown to have durable outcomes when compared to posterolateral fusion in the setting of post-decompression stabilization for stenotic patients. Other clinical and radiographic parameters, more indicative of durability, were also evaluated. The data collected from these parameters were used to expand the FDA composite clinical success (CCS) endpoint; thus, creating a more stringent Therapeutic Sustainability Endpoint (TSE). The TSE allows more precise calculation of the durability of interlaminar stabilization (ILS) when compared to the fusion control group.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data generated from a prospective, randomized, level-1 trial that was conducted at 21 US sites was carried out. Three hundred forty-four per-protocol subjects were enrolled and randomized to ILS or fusion after decompression for lumbar stenosis with up to grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical, safety, and radiographic data were collected and analyzed in both groups. Four-year outcomes were assessed, and the TSE was calculated for both cohorts. The clinical and radiographic factors thought to be associated with therapeutic sustainability were added to the CCS endpoints which were used for premarket approval (PMA).

Results

Success rate, comprised of no second intervention and an ODI improvement of ≥ 15 points, was 57.6% of ILS and 46.7% of fusion patients (p=0.095). Adding lack of fusion in the ILS cohort and successful fusion in the fusion cohort showed a CCS of 42.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Finally, adding adjacent level success to both cohorts and maintenance of foraminal height in the coflex cohort showed a CCS of 36.6% and 25.6%, respectively. With additional follow-up to five years in the U.S. PMA study, these trends are expected to continue to show the superior therapeutic sustainability of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion after decompression for spinal stenosis.

Conclusion

There are clear differences in both therapeutic sustainability and intended clinical effect of ILS compared to posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw fixation after decompression for spinal stenosis. There are CCS differences between coflex and fusion cohorts noted at four years post-op similar to the trends revealed in the two year data used for PMA approval. When therapeutic sustainability outcomes are added to the CCS, ILS is proven to be a sustainable treatment for stabilization of the vertebral motion segment after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.   

keywords: 
Lumbar spinal stenosis, interlaminar stabilization implant, Posterolateral fusion
Volume 9 Proof 15
doi: 
10.14444/2015