Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25586759›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2015

IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Wouter A Moojen, Mark P Arts, Wilco C H Jacobs, Erik W van Zwet, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, Bart W Koes, Carmen Lam Vleggeert-Lankamp, Wilco C Peul, Leiden The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS)

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2023
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wouter A MoojenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. w.a.moojen@lumc.nl.
Mark P ArtsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, The Netherlands. m.arts@mchaaglanden.nl.
Wilco C H JacobsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. w.c.h.jacobs@lumc.nl.
Erik W van ZwetDepartment of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. e.w.van_zwet@lumc.nl.
M Elske van den Akker-van MarleDepartment of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.e.van_den_akker-van_marle@lumc.nl.
Bart W KoesDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. b.koes@erasmusmc.nl.
Carmen Lam Vleggeert-LankampDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. cvleggeert@lumc.nl.
Wilco C PeulDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. w.c.peul@lumc.nl.
Leiden The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS)
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInterspinous process devices (IPDs) are implanted to treat patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication (INC) based on lumbar spinal stenosis. It is hypothesized that patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with IPD have a faster short-term recovery, an equal outcome after 2 years and less back pain compared with bony decompression.

methodsA randomized design with variable block sizes was used, with allocations stratified according to center. Allocations were stored in prepared opaque, coded and sealed envelopes, and patients and research nurses were blind throughout the follow-up. Five neurosurgical centers (including one academic and four secondary level care centers) included participants. 211 participants were referred to the Leiden-The Hague Spine Prognostic Study Group. 159 participants with INC based on lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two levels with an indication for surgery were randomized into two groups. Patients and research nurses were blinded for the allocated treatment throughout the study period. 80 participants received an IPD and 79 participants underwent spinal bony decompression. The primary outcome at long-term (2-year) follow-up was the score for the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Repeated measurement analyses were applied to compare outcomes over time.

resultsAt two years, the success rate according to the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire for the IPD group [69 % (95 % CI 57-78 %)] did not show a significant difference compared with standard bony decompression [60 % (95 % CI 48-71 %) p value 0.2]. Reoperations, because of absence of recovery, were indicated and performed in 23 cases (33 %) of the IPD group versus 6 (8 %) patients of the bony decompression group (p < 0.01). Furthermore, long-term VAS back pain was significantly higher [36 mm on a 100 mm scale (95 % CI 24-48)] in the IPD group compared to the bony decompression group [28 mm (95 % CI 23-34) p value 0.04].

conclusionsThis double-blinded study could not confirm the advantage of IPD without bony decompression over conventional 'simple' decompression, two years after surgery. Moreover, in the IPD treatment arm, the reoperation rate was higher and back pain was even slightly more intense compared to the decompression treatment arm.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansIntervertebral DiscLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedSpinal StenosisBony decompressionInterspinous implantsLumbar spinal stenosisRandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID25586759
OpenAlexW1987205168

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.