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.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Clinical Evaluation of Surgery for Single-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Lumbar decompression and lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled 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
- 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
- Innovative technologies in thoracolumbar and lumbar spine surgery failing to reach standard of care: state-of-art review.Spine deformity · 2024Review
- Percutaneous removal and replacement of a novel percutaneous interspinous device.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Article
- Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a new percutaneous interspinous device: a retrospective multicenter study.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Clinical and radiological outcomes following insertion of a novel removable percutaneous interspinous process spacer: an initial experience.Neuroradiology · 2022Observational
- A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Article
- Decompression Surgery versus Interspinous Devices for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Asian spine journal · 2020Article
- A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study.Medicine · 2020Article
- [The importance of interspinous spacers in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis].Der Orthopade · 2019Review
- Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer in Spinal-Canal-Stenosis Treatment: Pros and Cons.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.