Comparative Analysis of Pedicle Screw Fixation and Interspinous Devices in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Spine Conditions.
Vittorio Orlando, Gianluca Galieri, Edoardo Mazzucchi, Fabrizio Pignotti, Antonella Carcagnì, Paola Bazzu, Roberto Altieri, Manlio Barbarisi, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino, Giuseppe La Rocca
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Pedicle Screw Fixation and Interspinous Devices in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Spine Conditions.","authors":"Vittorio Orlando, Gianluca Galieri, Edoardo Mazzucchi, Fabrizio Pignotti, Antonella Carcagnì, Paola Bazzu, Roberto Altieri, Manlio Barbarisi, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino, Giuseppe La Rocca","doi":"10.3390/jpm15030095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Degenerative lumbar spine conditions are a major cause of disability, particularly in elderly patients or those with comorbidities. Surgical treatment often combines decompression and stabilization to address pain and instability. Pedicle screws are the gold standard for stabilization but pose challenges in patients with compromised bone quality. Interspinous devices have emerged as a less invasive alternative, but comparative studies are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of lumbar decompression with stabilization using pedicle screws versus interspinous devices. <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent lumbar decompression with either pedicle screw fixation or interspinous device stabilization at Mater Olbia Hospital between February 2020 and February 2023. Outcomes were evaluated using VAS for back and leg pain, SF-36 for quality of life, EQ-5D, and SCL-90 for psychological factors. Statistical analysis included paired <i>t</i>-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariate regression. <b>Results</b>: A total of 728 patients were included. The interspinous device group consisted of older patients with higher comorbidity burdens (mean age: 68.4 vs. 59.2 years, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Surgical time and incision size were significantly shorter in the interspinous group (<i>p</i> < 0.001), and no postoperative complications were reported, compared to 3.5% in the pedicle screws group (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain (VAS), quality of life (SF-36, EQ-5D), and psychological outcomes (SCL-90). Somatization and paranoid ideation were significant predictors of worse postoperative pain, particularly in the pedicle screws group. No significant differences in quality-of-life improvements were observed between the groups. <b>Conclusions</b>: Both stabilization techniques are effective for lumbar spine surgery, with interspinous devices offering a safer and less invasive option for high-risk patients. Psychological factors significantly influence pain outcomes, underscoring the need for a comprehensive approach addressing both physical and psychological aspects to optimize patient recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943498/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15030095","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Degenerative lumbar spine conditions are a major cause of disability, particularly in elderly patients or those with comorbidities. Surgical treatment often combines decompression and stabilization to address pain and instability. Pedicle screws are the gold standard for stabilization but pose challenges in patients with compromised bone quality. Interspinous devices have emerged as a less invasive alternative, but comparative studies are limited. This study aimed to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of lumbar decompression with stabilization using pedicle screws versus interspinous devices. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent lumbar decompression with either pedicle screw fixation or interspinous device stabilization at Mater Olbia Hospital between February 2020 and February 2023. Outcomes were evaluated using VAS for back and leg pain, SF-36 for quality of life, EQ-5D, and SCL-90 for psychological factors. Statistical analysis included paired t-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariate regression. Results: A total of 728 patients were included. The interspinous device group consisted of older patients with higher comorbidity burdens (mean age: 68.4 vs. 59.2 years, p < 0.001). Surgical time and incision size were significantly shorter in the interspinous group (p < 0.001), and no postoperative complications were reported, compared to 3.5% in the pedicle screws group (p < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain (VAS), quality of life (SF-36, EQ-5D), and psychological outcomes (SCL-90). Somatization and paranoid ideation were significant predictors of worse postoperative pain, particularly in the pedicle screws group. No significant differences in quality-of-life improvements were observed between the groups. Conclusions: Both stabilization techniques are effective for lumbar spine surgery, with interspinous devices offering a safer and less invasive option for high-risk patients. Psychological factors significantly influence pain outcomes, underscoring the need for a comprehensive approach addressing both physical and psychological aspects to optimize patient recovery.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.