Observational studyEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2013
Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life.
Observational study in 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, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- The clinical course of pain and disability following surgery for spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.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 · 2017Pooled it
- Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- A prospective randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine with the Wallis ligament.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 · 2014Trial
- [Spinal canal stenosis : Widespread disease or just a radiological diagnosis?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Interspinous Spacers in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Mapping Gap and Scoping Review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- [Spinal canal stenosis : Widespread disease or just a radiological diagnosis?]Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Quality of life in lumbar spinal stenosis: Does it correlate with magnetic resonance imaging and spinopelvic parameters?Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Validity of outcome measures used in randomized clinical trials and observational studies in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- 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
- Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP-a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Article
- Long-term results with percutaneous interspinous process devices in the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2017Article
- Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2017Review
- Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?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 · 2017Review
- Aperius interspinous device for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a review.Neurosurgical review · 2016Review
- Interspinous process spacers versus traditional decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2016Article
- Posterior dynamic stabilization in the lumbar spine - 24 months results of a prospective clinical and radiological study with an interspinous distraction device.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
- The cost effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2016Article
- Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.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 · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous interspinous stand-alone spacers offer a simple and effective technique to treat lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Nonetheless, open decompressive surgery remains the standard of care. This study compares the effectiveness of both techniques and the validity of percutaneous interspinous spacer use.
methodsForty-five patients were included in this open prospective non-randomized study, and treated either with percutaneous interspinous stand-alone spacers (Aperius(®)) or bilateral open microsurgical decompression at L3/4 or L4/5. Patient data, operative data, COMI, SF-36, PCS and MCS, ODI, and walking distance were collected 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months post-surgery.
resultsGroup 1 (n = 12) underwent spacer implantation, group 2 (n = 33) open decompression. Five patients from group 1 required implant removal and open decompression during follow-up (FU); one patient was lost to FU. From group 2, seven patients were lost to FU. Remaining patients were assessed as above. After 2 years, back pain, leg pain, ODI, and quality of life improved significantly for group 2. Remaining group 1 patients (n = 6) reported worse results. Walking distance improved for both groups.
conclusionDecompression proved superior to percutaneous stand-alone spacer implantation in our two observational cohorts. Therapeutic failure was too high for interspinous spacers.
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.