SynthesisPloS one2014
Interspinous spacer versus traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Interspinous process devices for treatment of degenerative lumbar spine stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.International orthopaedics · 2016Pooled it
- Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- 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
- Real-world complications, utilization patterns, and patient selection for the vertiflex interspinous process device: A national cohort analysis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Lumbar stand-alone interspinous fixation without decompression or bone graft: A 14-year cautionary case of late mechanical failure.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of 1027 Adverse Events Reports for Interspinous Process Devices From the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Early and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease Using the DIAM Stabilizer and Standard Rehabilitation Program: A Preliminary Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Follow-Up.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- When Does Intervention End and Surgery Begin? The Role of Interventional Pain Management in the Treatment of Spine Pathology.Current pain and headache reports · 2023Review
- Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Review
- Validity of outcome measures used in randomized clinical trials and observational studies in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Neurosurgical Management of Interspinous Device Complications: A Case Series.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- 15-year survivorship analysis of an interspinous device in surgery for single-level lumbar disc herniation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDynamic interspinous spacers, such as X-stop, Coflex, DIAM, and Aperius, are widely used for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, controversy remains as to whether dynamic interspinous spacer use is superior to traditional decompressive surgery.
methodsMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched during August 2013. A track search was performed on February 27, 2014. Study was included in this review if it was: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or non-randomized prospective comparison study, (2) comparing the clinical outcomes for interspinous spacer use versus traditional decompressive surgery, (3) in a minimum of 30 patients, (4) with a follow-up duration of at least 12 months.
resultsTwo RCTs and three non-randomized prospective studies were included, with 204 patients in the interspinous spacer (IS) group and 217 patients in the traditional decompressive surgery (TDS) group. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the IS and TDS groups for low back pain (WMD: 1.2; 95% CI: -10.12, 12.53; P = 0.03; I2 = 66%), leg pain (WMD: 7.12; 95% CI: -3.88, 18.12; P = 0.02; I2 = 70%), ODI (WMD: 6.88; 95% CI: -14.92, 28.68; P = 0.03; I2 = 79%), RDQ (WMD: -1.30, 95% CI: -3.07, 0.47; P = 0.00; I2 = 0%), or complications (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.61, 3.14; P = 0.23; I2 = 28%). The TDS group had a significantly lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 3.34; 95% CI: 1.77, 6.31; P = 0.60; I2 = 0%).
conclusionAlthough patients may obtain some benefits from interspinous spacers implanted through a minimally invasive technique, interspinous spacer use is associated with a higher incidence of reoperation and higher cost. The indications, risks, and benefits of using an interspinous process device should be carefully considered before surgery.
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.