Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Analysis of complications of minimally invasive approaches for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Analysis of complications of minimally invasive approaches for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis
Do you wish to request the book?
Analysis of complications of minimally invasive approaches for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Analysis of complications of minimally invasive approaches for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis
2025
Overview
IntroductionCurrent treatment modalities of lumbar spinal stenosis range from conservative medical management and physical therapy to open surgical decompression. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) and Superion interspinous spacers (SISS) Vertiflex offer the promise of effective pain relief with shorter recovery time and lesser potential complications compared with open surgical decompression procedures and general anesthesia. Despite their increasing utilization, their complication profile is not well established in the literature.MethodsWe searched the FDA’s Manufacturer and User facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for all entries on MILD product code ‘HRX’ and SISS product code ‘NQO’. MAUDE database was queried from 2010 to 2021. Duplicate entries were removed, and complications were classified based on the event descriptions.ResultsFor the MILD procedure, a total of 10 entries were found in the MAUDE database. Among these, 8 were classified as surgical complications and 2 were device related. On the other hand, a total of 919 reports were found in the MAUDE database for Vertiflex, with 385 medical device reports were included in the analysis. Device-related were the most reported complication, accounting for 189 cases.ConclusionAs with any new intervention, we must proceed with caution and evaluate the procedure performance over time. Such data should aid physicians to make informed decisions before choosing either technique for their patients. The findings from this study provide insight into the complication profile associated with both MILD and Vertiflex procedures, highlighting the need for continued evaluation and careful consideration in clinical decision-making.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
/ Chronic and interventional pain
/ Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects
/ Decompression, Surgical - instrumentation
/ Decompression, Surgical - methods
/ Decompression, Surgical - trends
/ Epidural
/ Humans
/ Lumbar Vertebrae - diagnostic imaging
/ Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
/ Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation
/ Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods
/ Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - trends
/ Outcome Assessment, Health Care
/ Pain
/ Patients
/ Postoperative Complications - diagnosis
/ Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
/ Postoperative Complications - etiology
/ Skin
