Interspinous Process Fixation Device Versus Extended Pedicle Screw Fixation for Symptomatic Adjacent Segment Disease:...

In the present study, we compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of an interspinous process fixation device (IFD) with those of extended pedicle screw fixation (PSF) for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion.

The data from 109 patients with ASD treated with IFD (n = 48) or extended PSF (n = 61) from January 2009 to January 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. The clinical outcomes were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index. The radiographic outcomes included the fusion rate, incidence of cage subsidence, and additional radiographic ASD.

The mean incision length, operative time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the IFD group (P < 0.001). Postoperative back and leg pain were relieved in both groups (P < 0.001). The mean preoperative VAS scores were 8.3 ± 1.3 and 8.5 ± 1.1 in the IFD and PSF groups and had improved to 2.8 ± 1.1 and 2.7 ± 1.2 after 36 months, respectively (P < 0.001). At 36 months postoperatively, 10 of the 56 patients (17.9%) in the PSF group had developed additional radiographic ASD compared with 2 of 44 patients (4.5%) in the IFD group.

Our results have demonstrated that in the treatment of symptomatic ASD, comparable clinical and radiologic outcomes can be achieved using IFD, which has a shorter skin incision, shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay than the extended PSF technique. Although not statistically significant, the IFD resulted in a lower ASD incidence compare with the PSF technique. Thus, IFD might be an alternative surgical method for symptomatic ASD after lumbar spine fusion.