ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity

@article{Guyer2016ISASSRC,
  title={ISASS Recommendations/Coverage Criteria for Decompression with Interlaminar Stabilization - Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity},
  author={R. Guyer and Michael J. Musacchio and F. Cammisa and M. Lorio},
  journal={International Journal of Spine Surgery},
  year={2016},
  volume={10}
}
Broadly defined, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the progressive narrowing of the spinal canal and neural foramen resulting in pressure upon the nerve(s) leading to pain and/or numbness in the extremities, muscle weakness, bowel and bladder issues, and/or other pain related issues. However, the 
Facet Arthroplasty Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices ( Spacers ) Description
  • 2019
Interspinous and interlaminar implants (spacers) stabilize or distract the adjacent lamina and/or spinous processes and restrict extension to reduce pain in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis andExpand
Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization / Distraction Devices ( Spacers ) Effective : May 1 , 2017
  • 2017
PLEASE NOTE: Contracts exclude from coverage, among other things, services or procedures that are considered investigational or cosmetic. Providers may bill members for services or procedures thatExpand
The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Spinal Stenosis
TLDR
The 2-level ILS patient group performed as well as, if not better than, the 2- level fusion group across almost all outcome measures, demonstrating both clinical outcome success and favorably low reoperation rates in patients who received ILS surgery. Expand
Spinal Stenosis Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year
Background: To alleviate the symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, widely accepted methods of surgical treatment include decompression alone and decompression with fusion. As an alternative to theseExpand
Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with 2-year follow-up to compare the performance of decompression with and without interlaminar stabilization.
TLDR
The CCS (survivorship, ODI success, absence of neurological deterioration or device- or procedure-related severe adverse events) is statistically superior for ILS, which increases walking distance, decreases compensatory pain management, and maintains radiographic foraminal height, extending the durability and sustainability of a decompression procedure. Expand
Is There Additional Value to Flexion-Extension Radiographs for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?
TLDR
Flexion-extension radiographs may play a limited role in management of degenerative spondylolisthesis and patients with smaller slips with no evidence of motion on standing radiographs versus MRI are selected. Expand
Artificial Intelligence Comparison of the Radiologist Report With Endoscopic Predictors of Successful Transforaminal Decompression for Painful Conditions of the Lumber Spine: Application of Deep Learning Algorithm Interpretation of Routine Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan
TLDR
Deep learning algorithms are capable of identifying lumbar foraminal compression due to herniated disc with primary care and endoscopic specialist physician to compare the radiologist's report with a review of endoscopic clinical outcomes. Expand
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 50 REFERENCES
Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
TLDR
Among patients with degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis, the addition of lumbar spinal fusion to laminectomy was associated with slightly greater but clinically meaningful improvement in overall physical health-related quality of life than lamin surgery alone. Expand
Decompression and Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Compared With Decompression and Instrumented Spinal Fusion for Spinal Stenosis and Low-Grade Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Two-Year Results From the Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exempti
TLDR
Coflex interlaminar stabilization is a safe and efficacious alternative, with certain advantages compared with lumbar spinal fusion in the treatment of spinal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis, and is demonstrated noninferiority. Expand
Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
TLDR
Results of this 5-year follow-up study demonstrate that decompression and interlaminar stabilization with coflex is a viable alternative to traditional decompressionand fusion in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe stenosis at one or two lumbar levels. Expand
Paradoxical Radiographic Changes of Coflex Interspinous Device with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
TLDR
The preoperative state including relatively higher ADH, PDH, and larger ROM could induce erosion, and insufficient reduction of disc height and ROM may induce adverse effects, which can increase the possibility of spinous process fracture or device malposition. Expand
Superion Interspinous Process Spacer for Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication Secondary to Moderate Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Two-Year Results From a Randomized Controlled FDA-IDE Pivotal Trial
TLDR
The primary composite endpoint of this study was met, which demonstrated that the Superion spacer was noninferior to the X-Stop spacer, and relieves symptoms of intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS in the majority of patients through 2 years. Expand
Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article.
TLDR
Low-grade spondylolisthesis was effectively stabilized by coflex and led to similar clinical outcomes, with improved perioperative outcomes, compared with PSF at 2 years, and it appears to reduce stresses at the adjacent levels. Expand
The short- and mid-term effect of dynamic interspinous distraction in the treatment of recurrent lumbar facet joint pain
TLDR
The implantation of an interspinous Coflex device in case of recurrent facet joints pain succeeds to improve facet joint pain in clinical short-and mid-term settings, however, it does not exceed the outcome of denervated patients. Expand
Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis
TLDR
The Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization Device was found to be cost effective compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and provided higher utility at substantially lower cost. Expand
Outcome of decompression with and without fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis in relation to preoperative pain pattern: a register study of 1,624 patients.
TLDR
Patients with PBP operated with DF report better outcomes in terms of pain, function, and health-related quality of life than patients with D, but because of baseline differences in preoperative BP, these improvements may not be explained by the added fusion per se. Expand
Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized controlled trial
TLDR
This double blinded study could not confirm the hypothesized short term advantage of interspinous process device over conventional “simple” decompression and even showed a fairly high reoperation rate after interspinning process device implantation. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...