Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20635103›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2010

Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device.

Sven Rainer Kantelhardt, Elisabeth Török, Jens Gempt, Michael Stoffel, Florian Ringel, Carsten Stüer, Bernhard Meyer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Clinical evaluation of the preliminary safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive interspinous process device APERIUS(®) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with symptomatic neurogenic intermittent claudication.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2012
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Spinal column: implants and revisions].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sven Rainer KantelhardtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Elisabeth Török
Jens Gempt
Michael Stoffel
Florian Ringel
Carsten Stüer
Bernhard Meyer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is a degenerative disease of the elderly population. Although microsurgical decompression has shown good long-term results, percutaneous techniques could provide an alternative in the presence of significant comorbidities.

methodEighty-seven interspinous process decompression devices (In-space; Synthes, Umkirch, Germany) were implanted percutaneously in up to three segments of 50 patients. Outcome was assessed directly after surgery, at 6-8 weeks, and at average follow-up of 1 year (11.8 ± 6 months). Assessment included complications, pain and spinal claudication, neurodeficit, time to recurrence of symptoms, and time to second surgery. Subgroups with additional low back pain at presentation and mild spondylolisthesis were analyzed separately.

findingsIntraoperative complications were rare (one misplacement and two cases of failed implantation); average operation time was 16.4 ± 12.2 min per segment. Initial response was very good with 72% good or excellent relief of symptoms. After a 1-year follow-up, 42% reported of lasting relief from spinal claudication. Thirteen percent of these complained about lasting or new-onset low back pain. A second surgery had been performed in 22%. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients presenting with additional low back pain and spondylolisthesis patients. No significant differences could be noted between subgroups.

conclusionsThe In-space is a percutaneous treatment option of claudication in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Compared with microsurgical decompression surgery, recurrence rate within 1 year is, however, high and the device seems not suitable for the treatment of low back pain. Therefore, the authors suggest that the device should presently be used primarily in controlled clinical trials in order to get more information concerning the optimal indication.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedNeurosurgical ProceduresProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis ImplantationRadiographySpinal StenosisSpondylosis

Identifiers

PMID20635103
PMCPMC3128705
OpenAlexW2064673848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.