ArticleActa neurochirurgica2010
Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer vs Decompression in Patients with Neurogenic Claudication: An Alternative in Selected Patients?Neurosurgery · 2018Trial
- 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 · 2012Trial
- A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- The use of minimally invasive interspinous process devices for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a narrative literature review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Review
- [Spinal column: implants and revisions].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Article
- One-year follow-up of a series of 100 patients treated for lumbar spinal canal stenosis by means of HeliFix interspinous process decompression device.BioMed research international · 2014Article
- Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.Neurosurgical review · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.