ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2014
Interspinous posterior devices: What is the real surgical indication?
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries supplemented with "topping-off" implants in lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Review
- Biomechanical changes of degenerated adjacent segment and intact lumbar spine after lumbosacral topping-off surgery: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Spinal motion preservation surgery: indications and applications.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2018Review
- Comment on "Controversies about Interspinous Process Devices in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases: Past, Present, and Future".BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Lumbar spinal degenerative "microinstability": hype or hope? Proposal of a new classification to detect it and to assess surgical treatment.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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interspinous posterior device (IPD) is a term used to identify a relatively recent group of implants used to treat lumbar spinal degenerative disease. This kind of device is classified as part of the group of the dynamic stabilization systems of the spine. The concept of dynamic stabilization has been replaced by that of dynamic neutralization of hypermobility, with the intention of clarifying that the primary aim of this kind of system is not the preservation of the movement, but the dynamic neutralization of the segmental hypermobility which is at the root of the pathological condition. The indications for the implantation of an IPD are spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication, assuming that its function is the enlargement of the neural foramen and the decompression of the roots forming the cauda equina in the central part of the vertebral canal. In the last 10 years, use of these implants has been very common but to date, no long-term clinical follow-up regarding clinical and radiological aspects are available. The high rate of reoperation, recurrence of symptoms and progression of degenerative changes is evident in the literature. If these devices are effectively a miracle cure for lumbar spinal stenosis, why do the utilization and implantation of IPD remain extremely controversial and should they be investigated further? Excluding the problems related to the high cost of the device, the main problem remains the pathological substrate on which the device is explicit in its action: the degenerative pathology of the spine.
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.