Search

In this retrospective review study, the authors systematically reviewed the literature to elucidate the efficacy and complications associated with decompression and interspinous devices (ISDs) used in surgeries for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). LSS is a debilitating condition that affects the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. However, a comprehensive report on the relative efficacy and complication rate of ISDs as they compare to traditional decompression procedures is currently lacking. The PubMed database was queried to identify clinical studies that exclusively investigated decompression, those that exclusively investigated ISDs, and those that compared decompression with ISDs. Only prospective cohort studies, case series, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, or Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were included. A random-effects model was established to assess the difference between preoperative and the 1-2-year postoperative VAS scores between ISD surgery and lumbar decompression. This study included 40 papers that matched our criteria. Twenty-five decompression-exclusive clinical trials with 3,386 patients and a mean age of 68.7 years (range, 31-88 years) reported a 2.2% incidence rate of dural tears and a 2.6% incidence rate of postoperative infections. Eight ISD-exclusive clinical trials with 1,496 patients and a mean age of 65.1 (range, 19-89 years) reported a 5.3% incidence rate of postoperative leg pain and a 3.7% incidence rate of spinous process fractures. Seven studies that compared ISDs and decompression in 624 patients found a reoperation rate of 8.3% in ISD patients vs. 3.9% in decompression patients; they also reported dural tears in 0.32% of ISD patients vs. 5.2% in decompression patients. A meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials found that the differences in preoperative and postoperative VAS scores between the two groups were not significant. Both decompression and ISD interventions are unique surgical interventions with different therapeutic efficacies and complications. The collected studies do not consistently demonstrate superiority of either procedure over the other but understanding the differences between the two techniques can help tailor treatment regimens for patients with LSS.

Objective: The incidence of hemorrhage in patients who undergo deep brain stimulation (DBS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is between 0.5% and 2.5%. Coagulation status is one of the factors that can predispose patients to the development of these complications. As a routine part of preoperative assessment, the authors obtain prothrombin time (PT), partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and platelet count. However, insurers often cover only PT/PTT laboratory tests if the patient is receiving warfarin/heparin. The authors aimed to examine their experience with abnormal coagulation parameters in patients who underwent neuromodulation., Methods: Patients who underwent neuromodulation (SCS, DBS, or intrathecal pump implantation) over a 9-year period and had preoperative laboratory values available were included. The authors determined abnormal values on the basis of a clinical protocol utilized at their practice, which combined the normal ranges of the laboratory tests and clinical relevance. This protocol had cutoff values of 12 seconds and 39 seconds for PT and PTT, respectively, and < 120,000 platelets/μl. The authors identified risk factors for these abnormalities and described interventions., Results: Of the 1767 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 136 had abnormal preoperative laboratory values. Five of these 136 patients had values that were misclassified as abnormal because they were within the normal ranges at the outside facility where they were tested. Fifty-one patients had laboratory values outside the ranges of our protocol, but the surgeons reviewed and approved these patients without further intervention. Of the remaining 80 patients, 8 had known coagulopathies and 24 were receiving warfarin/heparin. The remaining 48 patients were receiving other anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications. These included apixaban/rivaroxaban/dabigatran anticoagulants (n = 22; mean ± SD PT 13.7 ± 2.5 seconds) and aspirin/clopidogrel/other antiplatelet medications (n = 26; mean ± SD PT 14.4 ± 5.8 seconds). Eight new coagulopathies were identified and further investigated with hematological analysis., Conclusions: New anticoagulants and antiplatelet medications are not monitored with PT/PTT, but they affect coagulation status and laboratory values. Although platelet function tests aid in a subset of medications, it is more difficult to assess the coagulation status of patients receiving novel anticoagulants. PT/PTT may provide value preoperatively.