Aperius interspinous device for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a review

• Published in: Neurosurgical review Vol. 39; no. 2; pp. 197 - 205
• Main Authors: Ramesh, Ashwanth, Lyons, Frank, Kelleher, Michael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.04.2016
• Subjects: Decompression, Surgical - methods; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neurosurgery; Pain Measurement - methods; Prostheses and Implants; Review; Spinal Stenosis - diagnosis; Spinal Stenosis - surgery; Treatment Outcome; Literature review; Aperius; Neurogenic intermittent claudication; Spinal decompression; Spinal stenosis; Distraction device
• ISSN: 0344-5607; 1437-2320
• DOI: 10.1007/s10143-015-0664-9

With an aging population, degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) leading to neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) is a growing problem. For patients suffering from this condition, interspinous process distraction devices (IPDs) offer an effective and cheap alternative to conservative or decompressive surgery. Aperius is one such device that has been gaining popularity for its percutaneous insertion under local anesthetic, short operative time, and low risk of complications. The main objective of this review was to carry out a comprehensive search of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and potential complications of Aperius. A database search, including PubMed, Clinical trials.gov, Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus, was carried out to identify relevant articles written in English reporting on complications with a minimum 12-month follow-up. The literature search resulted in six eligible studies; two nonrandomized comparative and four prospective case series were available. The analysis revealed that in total, 433 patients underwent treatment with Aperius, with all studies demonstrating an improvement in outcome measures. The average follow-up was 17 months with an overall complication rate of 10.62 %. Overall, the quality of evidence is low, suggesting that currently, the evidence is not compelling and further prospective randomized trials including cost-effectiveness studies are required.