Isthmic spondylolisthesis and interspinous process device. Hype, hope, or contraindication?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate, through the analysis of a case report and the literature review, indications and contraindications of Interspinous Process Device (IPD) in the surgical treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis (LIS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 37-years-old male with L5-S1 grade 2 LIS, treated with IPD at another center, referred to us eight months later with a worsening of back and leg pain. A revision surgery was performed with IPD removal and a L5-S1 TLIF.

RESULTS: Clinical evaluation highlighted an improvement of pain, functionality, and quality of life scores at six months (VAS 4; ODI 30; EQ-5D 70) and twelve months follow-up (VAS 1; ODI 20; EQ-5D 90). CT scan was performed at six months and one-year follow-up to evaluate the fusion rate and stability of the implant.

CONCLUSIONS: Given the pathologic anatomy and the biomechanics of LIS, IPD is ineffective in preventing further vertebral body slippage resulting in segmental kyphosis, because of the lack of connection between the posterior arch and the vertebral body due to the isthmic lesion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2340-2344
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Spondylolisthesis
Equipment and Supplies
Device Removal
Kyphosis
Back Pain
Reoperation
Biomechanical Phenomena
Leg
Anatomy
Quality of Life
Pain
Therapeutics

Cite this

@article{9954aa56e4df4187883bd78cc38fe050,
title = "Isthmic spondylolisthesis and interspinous process device. Hype, hope, or contraindication?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate, through the analysis of a case report and the literature review, indications and contraindications of Interspinous Process Device (IPD) in the surgical treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis (LIS).PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 37-years-old male with L5-S1 grade 2 LIS, treated with IPD at another center, referred to us eight months later with a worsening of back and leg pain. A revision surgery was performed with IPD removal and a L5-S1 TLIF.RESULTS: Clinical evaluation highlighted an improvement of pain, functionality, and quality of life scores at six months (VAS 4; ODI 30; EQ-5D 70) and twelve months follow-up (VAS 1; ODI 20; EQ-5D 90). CT scan was performed at six months and one-year follow-up to evaluate the fusion rate and stability of the implant.CONCLUSIONS: Given the pathologic anatomy and the biomechanics of LIS, IPD is ineffective in preventing further vertebral body slippage resulting in segmental kyphosis, because of the lack of connection between the posterior arch and the vertebral body due to the isthmic lesion.",
author = "V Pipola and Alessandro Gasbarrini and Marco Girolami and Cristiana Griffoni and R Zaccaro and {Barbanti Br{\`o}dano}, Giovanni",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.26355/eurrev_201903_17377",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "2340--2344",
journal = "European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences",
issn = "1128-3602",
publisher = "Verduci Editore",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Isthmic spondylolisthesis and interspinous process device. Hype, hope, or contraindication?

AU - Pipola, V

AU - Gasbarrini, Alessandro

AU - Girolami, Marco

AU - Griffoni, Cristiana

AU - Zaccaro, R

AU - Barbanti Bròdano, Giovanni

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate, through the analysis of a case report and the literature review, indications and contraindications of Interspinous Process Device (IPD) in the surgical treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis (LIS).PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 37-years-old male with L5-S1 grade 2 LIS, treated with IPD at another center, referred to us eight months later with a worsening of back and leg pain. A revision surgery was performed with IPD removal and a L5-S1 TLIF.RESULTS: Clinical evaluation highlighted an improvement of pain, functionality, and quality of life scores at six months (VAS 4; ODI 30; EQ-5D 70) and twelve months follow-up (VAS 1; ODI 20; EQ-5D 90). CT scan was performed at six months and one-year follow-up to evaluate the fusion rate and stability of the implant.CONCLUSIONS: Given the pathologic anatomy and the biomechanics of LIS, IPD is ineffective in preventing further vertebral body slippage resulting in segmental kyphosis, because of the lack of connection between the posterior arch and the vertebral body due to the isthmic lesion.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate, through the analysis of a case report and the literature review, indications and contraindications of Interspinous Process Device (IPD) in the surgical treatment of Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis (LIS).PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 37-years-old male with L5-S1 grade 2 LIS, treated with IPD at another center, referred to us eight months later with a worsening of back and leg pain. A revision surgery was performed with IPD removal and a L5-S1 TLIF.RESULTS: Clinical evaluation highlighted an improvement of pain, functionality, and quality of life scores at six months (VAS 4; ODI 30; EQ-5D 70) and twelve months follow-up (VAS 1; ODI 20; EQ-5D 90). CT scan was performed at six months and one-year follow-up to evaluate the fusion rate and stability of the implant.CONCLUSIONS: Given the pathologic anatomy and the biomechanics of LIS, IPD is ineffective in preventing further vertebral body slippage resulting in segmental kyphosis, because of the lack of connection between the posterior arch and the vertebral body due to the isthmic lesion.

U2 - 10.26355/eurrev_201903_17377

DO - 10.26355/eurrev_201903_17377

M3 - Article

C2 - 30964157

VL - 23

SP - 2340

EP - 2344

JO - European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences

JF - European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences

SN - 1128-3602

IS - 6

ER -