J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2015; 76(01): 1-7
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382779
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Indications and Contraindications: Interspinous Process Decompression Devices in Lumbar Spine Surgery

Jan Siewe
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Max Selbeck
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Timmo Koy
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Marc Röllinghoff
2   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Halle/Saale, Halle/Saale, Germany
Peer Eysel
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Kourosh Zarghooni
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Johannes Oppermann
1   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Christian Herren
3   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center City Aachen GmBH, Würselen, Germany
Rolf Sobottke
3   Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center City Aachen GmBH, Würselen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

06 August 2013

03 March 2014

Publication Date:
07 October 2014 (online)


Background Interspinous process decompression devices (IPD) allow a minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but their use is discussed highly controversial. Several level I studies suggest that IPD implantation is a viable alternative for both conservative treatment and decompression, but clear indications and contraindications are still missing. This study was designed to explore the perspectives and limitations of IPDs and to evaluate the role of these devices in general.

Material and Methods The study is based on a questionnaire sent to all hospitals registered in the German Hospital Address Register 2010 with an orthopedic, neurosurgerical, or spine surgery department (n = 1,321). The questionnaire was reviewed by experienced spine surgeons and statisticians, and included both single-response, close-ended, and multiple-response open-ended questions.

Results We received 329 (24.9%) entirely analyzable questionnaires. A total of 164 respondents (49.8%) stated that IPDs are a treatment option for LSS, and 135 of the 164 respondents (82.3%) use them. Poor clinical experience (60%) and lack of evidence (53.9%) are the main reasons cited for not using IPDs. We detected a high negative correlation between the size of the hospital, the number of outpatients and inpatients treated for LSS and other spine pathologies, and the use of IPDs (p = 0.001). Most respondents prefer the combination of open decompression and IPD (64.4%; n = 87). A total of 9.6% (n = 13) of the users favor IPD implantation as a stand-alone procedure. Overall, 25.9%  n = 35  use both options. Most surgeons aim to relieve the facet joints (87.7%) and to stabilize a preexisting instability (75.4%). They recommend IPDs in the segments L2–L3 (77%), L3–L4 (98.5%), and L4–l5 (99.3%) and consider that IPD implanation also could be done at the L5–S1 segment (40.1%). Overall, 64.4% (n = 87) of the users recommend limiting IPD implantation to two segments. Infection (96.3%), fracture (94.8%), isthmic spondylolisthesis (77%), degenerative spondylolisthesis (higher than Meyerding I [57%]), lumbar spine scoliosis (48.1%), and osteoporosis (50.4%) are seen as contraindications for IPD.

Conclusion  No clear consensus exists among spine surgeons concerning the use of IPD for LSS treatment. The study showed that hospital-related parameters also influence decision making for or against the use of IPDs. However, despite the lack of evidence, the indications and contraindications which had been identified in the present study might contribute to improved outcomes after IPD implantation or at least prevent harm to patients.

  • References

  • 1 Deyo RA, Ciol MA, Cherkin DC, Loeser JD, Bigos SJ. Lumbar spinal fusion. A cohort study of complications, reoperations, and resource use in the Medicare population. Spine 1993; 18 (11) 1463-1470
  • 2 Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005; 30 (12) 1441-1445 ; discussion 1446–1447
  • 3 Dai LY, Xu YK, Zhang WM, Zhou ZH. The effect of flexion-extension motion of the lumbar spine on the capacity of the spinal canal. An experimental study. Spine 1989; 14 (5) 523-525
  • 4 Verbiest H. A radicular syndrome from developmental narrowing of the lumbar vertebral canal. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1954; 36-B (2) 230-237
  • 5 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD , et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. Spine 2010; 35 (14) 1329-1338
  • 6 Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD , et al; SPORT Investigators. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (8) 794-810
  • 7 Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS , et al. The relationship between disc degeneration, facet joint osteoarthritis, and stability of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord 2000; 13 (5) 444-450
  • 8 Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A ; Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 2001; 26 (23) 2521-2532 ; discussion 2532–2534
  • 9 Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG , et al. Adjacent segment disease following lumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine 2007; 32 (20) 2253-2257
  • 10 Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord 1995; 8 (6) 464-473
  • 11 Korovessis P, Repantis T, Zacharatos S, Zafiropoulos A. Does Wallis implant reduce adjacent segment degeneration above lumbosacral instrumented fusion?. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (6) 830-840
  • 12 Khoueir P, Kim KA, Wang MY. Classification of posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 22 (1) E3
  • 13 Bono CM, Vaccaro AR. Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007; 20 (3) 255-261
  • 14 Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M , et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (8) 1057-1065
  • 15 Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA , et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 2005; 30 (12) 1351-1358
  • 16 Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4 (6) 463-471
  • 17 Kabir SM, Gupta SR, Casey AT. Lumbar interspinous spacers: a systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence. Spine 2010; 35 (25) E1499-E1506
  • 18 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 (1) 22-31
  • 19 Kuchta J, Sobottke R, Eysel P, Simons P. Two-year results of interspinous spacer (X-Stop) implantation in 175 patients with neurologic intermittent claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (6) 823-829
  • 20 Beyer F, Yagdiran A, Neu P, Kaulhausen T, Eysel P, Sobottke R. Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J 2013; 22 (9) 2015-2021
  • 21 Sobottke R, Röllinghoff M, Siewe J , et al. Clinical outcomes and quality of life 1.  year after open microsurgical decompression or implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010; 53 (4) 179-183
  • 22 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 (17) 1436-1442
  • 23 Tuschel A, Chavanne A, Eder C, Meissl M, Becker P, Ogon M. Implant survival analysis and failure modes of the X-Stop interspinous distraction device. Spine 2013; 38 (21) 1826-1831
  • 24 Lo Jr TP, Salerno SS, Colohan ART. Interlaminar spacer: a review of its mechanism, application, and efficacy. World Neurosurg 2010; 74 (6) 617-626
  • 25 Bowers C, Amini A, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH. Dynamic interspinous process stabilization: review of complications associated with the X-Stop device. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (6) E8
  • 26 Epstein NE. A review of interspinous fusion devices: high complication, reoperation rates, and costs with poor outcomes. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3: 7
  • 27 Verhoof OJ, Bron JL, Wapstra FH, van Royen BJ. High failure rate of the interspinous distraction device (X-Stop) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis caused by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (2) 188-192
  • 28 Barbagallo GM, Olindo G, Corbino L, Albanese V. Analysis of complications in patients treated with the X-Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System: proposal for a novel anatomic scoring system for patient selection and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2009; 65 (1) 111-119 ; discussion 119–120
  • 29 Lauryssen C. Appropriate selection of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis for interspinous process decompression with the X STOP device. Neurosurg Focus 2007; 22 (1) E5
  • 30 Deyo RA, Martin BI, Ching A , et al. Interspinous spacers compared with decompression or fusion for lumbar stenosis: complications and repeat operations in the Medicare population. Spine 2013; 38 (10) 865-872
  • 31 Kaulhausen T, Siewe J, Eysel P , et al. The role of the inter-/supraspinous ligament complex in stand-alone interspinous process devices: a biomechanical and anatomic study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2012; 73 (2) 65-72
  • 32 Kovacs FM, Urrútia G, Alarcón JD. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Spine 2011; 36 (20) E1335-E1351
  • 33 Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (8) 818-825
  • 34 Schulte TL, Bullmann V, Lerner T , et al. Lumbar spinal stenosis. [in German]. Orthopade 2006; 35 (6) 675-692 ; quiz 693–694
  • 35 Atlas SJ, Delitto A. Spinal stenosis: surgical versus nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 443 (443) 198-207
  • 36 Holinka J, Krepler P, Matzner M, Grohs JG. Stabilising effect of dynamic interspinous spacers in degenerative low-grade lumbar instability. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (3) 395-400
  • 37 Nardi P, Cabezas D, Rea G, Pettorini BL. Aperius PercLID stand alone interspinous system for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis: experience on 152 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23 (3) 203-207
  • 38 Sandu N, Schaller B, Arasho B, Orabi M. Wallis interspinous implantation to treat degenerative spinal disease: description of the method and case series. Expert Rev Neurother 2011; 11 (6) 799-807
  • 39 Richolt JA, Rauschmann MA, Schmidt S. Interspinous spacers—technique of Coflex™ implantation. [in German]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010; 22 (5–6) 536-544
  • 40 Siepe CJ, Heider F, Beisse R, Mayer HM, Korge A. Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer. [in German]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010; 22 (5–6) 524-535
  • 41 Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Kettler A. Biomechanics of interspinous spacers. [in German]. Orthopade 2010; 39 (6) 565-572
  • 42 Kim DH, Shanti N, Tantorski ME , et al. Association between degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinous process fracture after interspinous process spacer surgery. Spine J 2012; 12 (6) 466-472
  • 43 Zucherman JF, Telles CJ. Commentary: Interspinous devices, spondylolisthesis, and spinous process-related complications. Spine J 2012; 12 (6) 473-475
  • 44 Rolfe KW, Zucherman JF, Kondrashov DG, Hsu KY, Nosova E. Scoliosis and interspinous decompression with the X-STOP: prospective minimum 1-year outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2010; 10 (11) 972-978
  • 45 Idler C, Zucherman JF, Yerby S, Hsu KY, Hannibal M, Kondrashov D. A novel technique of intra-spinous process injection of PMMA to augment the strength of an inter-spinous process device such as the X STOP. Spine 2008; 33 (4) 452-456
  • 46 Sobottke R, Koy T, Röllinghoff M , et al. Computed tomography measurements of the lumbar spinous processes and interspinous space. Surg Radiol Anat 2010; 32 (8) 731-738