Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22549123›Full record

ReviewNeurosurgical review2012

Role of lumbar interspinous distraction on the neural elements.

Alex Alfieri, Roberto Gazzeri, Julian Prell, Christian Scheller, Jens Rachinger, Christian Strauss, Andreas Schwarz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurosurgical review, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alex AlfieriDepartment of Neurosurgery, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany. alex.alfieri@medizin.uni-halle.de
Roberto Gazzeri
Julian Prell
Christian Scheller
Jens Rachinger
Christian Strauss
Andreas Schwarz
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DEAzienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Addolorata · ITOspedale di Bolzano · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The interspinous distraction devices are used to treat variable pathologies ranging from facet syndrome, diskogenic low back pain, degenerative spinal stenosis, diskopathy, spondylolisthesis, and instability. The insertion of a posterior element with an interspinous device (ISD) is commonly judged responsive to a relative kyphosis of a lumbar segment with a moderate but persistent increase of the spinal canal and of the foraminal width and area, and without influence on low-grade spondylolisthesis. The consequence is the need of shared specific biomechanical concepts to give for each degenerative problem the right indication through a critical analysis of all available experimental and clinical biomechanical data. We reviewed systematically the available clinical and experimental data about kyphosis, enlargement of the spinal canal, distraction of the interspinous distance, increase of the neural foramina, ligamentous structures, load of the posterior annulus, intradiskal pressure, strength of the spinous processes, degeneration of the adjacent segment, complications, and cost-effectiveness of the ISD. The existing literature does not provide actual scientific evidence over the superiority of the ISD strategy, but most of the experimental and clinical data show a challenging potential. These considerations are applicable with different types of ISD with only few differences between the different categories. Despite--or because of--the low invasiveness of the surgical implantation of the ISD, this technique promises to play a major role in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery. The main indications for ISD remain lumbar spinal stenoses and painful facet arthroses. A clear documented contraindication is the presence of an anterolisthesis. Nevertheless, the existing literature does not provide evidence of superiority of outcome and cost-effectiveness of the ISD strategy over laminectomy or other surgical procedures. At this time, the devices should be used in clinical randomized independent trials in order to obtain more information concerning the most advantageous optimal indication or, in selected cases, to treat tailored indications.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansJoint InstabilityKyphosisOsteogenesis, DistractionSpinal CanalSpinal DiseasesSpinal StenosisSpineTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22549123
OpenAlexW2019704975

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.