Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE

Peter S Staats, Timothy B Chafin, Stanley Golovac, Christopher K Kim, Sean Li, William B Richardson, Ricardo Vallejo, Sayed E Wahezi, Edward P Washabaugh 3rd, Ramsin M Benyamin, MiDAS ENCORE Investigators, Peter S Staats, Timothy B Chafin, Stanley Golovac, Christopher K Kim, Sean Li, William B Richardson, Ricardo Vallejo, Sayed E Wahezi, Edward P Washabaugh 3rd, Ramsin M Benyamin, MiDAS ENCORE Investigators

Abstract

Background and objectives: This study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients.

Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events.

Results: All outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event.

Conclusions: MILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum.

Clinical trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Pre (A) and post (B) epidurograms of the lumbar spine. Increased filling is noted following treatment with the MILD procedure. Images courtesy of Sayed E. Wahezi, MD, Montefiore Medical Center.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Oswestry Disability Index mean improvement at all follow-up intervals was clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P < 0.001) using modified intent-to-treat statistical analysis method. The modified intent-to-treat analysis includes all observed data for each follow-up visit reported. Subjects who missed a given follow-up, or who withdrew prior to that follow-up, are not included in the analysis for that visit.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Numeric Pain Rating Scale mean improvement at all follow-up intervals was clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P < 0.001) using modified intent-to-treat statistical analysis method. The modified intent-to-treat analysis includes all observed data for each follow-up visit reported. Subjects who missed a given follow-up, or who withdrew prior to that follow-up, are not included in the analysis for that visit.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Mean improvement for ZCQ symptom severity and ZCQ physical function domains at all follow-up intervals was clinically meaningful and statistically significant (P < 0.001) using modified intent-to-treat statistical analysis method. The modified intent-to-treat analysis includes all observed data for each follow-up visit reported. Subjects who missed a given follow-up, or who withdrew prior to that follow-up, are not included in the analysis for that visit.

References

    1. Katz JN, Harris MB. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:818–825.
    1. Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine. 1996;21:2016–2052.
    1. Hansson T, Suzuki N, Hebelka H, Gaulitz A. The narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal during loaded MRI: the effects of the disc and ligamentum flavum. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:679–686.
    1. Allegri M, Montella S, Salici F, et al. Mechanisms of low back pain: a guide for diagnosis and therapy [version 2]. F1000Res. 2016;5: F1000 Faculty Rev-1530.
    1. Bogduk N. On the definitions and physiology of back pain, referred pain, and radicular pain. Pain. 2009;147:17–19.
    1. Mekhail N, Costandi S, Abraham B, Samuel SW. Functional and patient-reported outcomes in symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis following percutaneous decompression. Pain Pract. 2012;12:417–425.
    1. Benyamin RM, Staats PS. MiDAS ENCORE: randomized controlled study design and protocol. Pain Physician. 2015;18:307–316.
    1. Staats PS, Benyamin RM. MiDAS ENCORE: randomized controlled clinical trial report of 6-month results. Pain Physician. 2016;19:25–37.
    1. Benyamin RM, Staats PS. MILD® is an effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: MiDAS ENCORE randomized controlled trial. Pain Physician. 2016;19:229–242.
    1. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20.
    1. Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33:90–94.
    1. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–1334.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94:149–158.
    1. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–291.
    1. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1369–1378.
    1. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine. 1996;21:796–803.
    1. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:22–31.
    1. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794–810.
    1. Irmola TM, Hakkinen A, Jarvenpaa S, Marttinen I, Vihtonen K, Neva M. Reoperation rates following instrumented lumbar spine fusion. Spine. 2018;43:295–301.
    1. Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1413–1423.
    1. Ong KL, Auerbach JD, Lau E, Schmier J, Ochoa JA. Perioperative outcomes, complications, and costs associated with lumbar spinal fusion in older patients with spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E5.
    1. Food and Drug Administration (US) [Internet]. Superion® InterSpinous Spacer Summary of Safety & Effectiveness Data. Silver Spring, MD: CDRH; 2015: Available at: . Accessed November 6, 2017.
    1. Strömqvist BH, Berg S, Gerdhem P, et al. X-Stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Spine. 2013;38:1436–1442.
    1. Choi JM, Choi MK, Kim SB. Perioperative results and complications after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis in geriatric patients over than 70 years old. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60:684–690.
    1. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:2521–2534.
    1. Chopko BW. Long-term results of percutaneous lumbar decompression for LSS: two-year outcomes. Clin J Pain. 2013;29:939–943.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit