To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Axial loading during MRI … - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius (TM) PerCLID (TM)) on spinal canal area

Journal article
Authors H. Hjaltadottir
H. Hebelka
C. Molinder
Helena Brisby
Adad Baranto
Published in European Spine Journal
Volume 29
Issue 122-128
ISSN 0940-6719
Publication year 2020
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Orthopaedics
Language en
Keywords Spinal stenosis, Axial loading during MRI, Interspinous process device, MRI, Decompression, stenosis treatment, x-stop, lumbar, spacers, device, Neurosciences & Neurology, Orthopedics
Subject categories Orthopedics


Purpose To evaluate the effect on the spinal canal at the treated and adjacent level(s), in patients treated for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with percutaneous interspinous process device (IPD) Aperius (TM) or open decompressive surgery (ODS), using axial loading of the spine during MRI (alMRI). Materials Nineteen LSS patients (mean age 67 years, range 49-78) treated with IPDs in 29 spine levels and 13 LSS patients (mean age 63 years, range 46-76) operated with ODS in 22 spine levels were examined with alMRI pre- and 3 months postoperatively. Radiological effects were evaluated by measuring the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) and by morphological grading of nerve root affection. Results For the IPD group, no DSCSA increase was observed at the operated level (p = 0.42); however, a decrease was observed in adjacent levels (p = 0.05). No effect was seen regarding morphological grading (operated level: p = 0.71/adjacent level: p = 0.94). For the ODS group, beneficial effects were seen for the operated level, both regarding DSCSA (p < 0.001) and for morphological grading (p < 0.0001). No changes were seen for adjacent levels (DSCSA; p = 0.47/morphological grading: p = 0.95). Postoperatively, a significant difference between the groups existed at the operated level regarding both evaluated parameters (p < 0.003). Conclusions With the spine imaged in an axial loaded position, no significant radiological effects of an IPD could be detected postoperatively at the treated level, while increased DSCSA was displayed for the ODS group. In addition, reduced DSCSA in adjacent levels was detected for the IPD group. Thus, the beneficial effects of IPD implants on the spinal canal must be questioned.

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?