ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2015
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.
Article 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Lumbar Stabilization with Interspinous Process Devices for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Five-year radiological outcomes between decompression alone and decompression with an interlaminar device for lumbar spinal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 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
- Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Topping-off surgery vs posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a comparative study of clinical efficacy and adjacent segment degeneration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Article
- The 2-Level Experience of Interlaminar Stabilization: 5-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Experience Compared to Fusion for the Sustainable Management of Spinal Stenosis.International journal of spine surgery · 2018Article
- Spinal Stenosis in the Absence of Spondylolisthesis: Can Interlaminar Stabilization at Single and Multi-levels Provide Sustainable Relief?International journal of spine surgery · 2018Article
- Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2017Review
- Change of sagittal spinal alignment and its association with pain and function after lumbar surgery augmented with an interspinous implant.Scoliosis and spinal disorders · 2017Article
- Article
- The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European spine journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European spine journal, 2015.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 · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization Compared with Decompression and Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 5-year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.International journal of spine surgery · 2016Article
- Pain outcome of non-instrumented lumbar decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease using patient-reported pain outcome instruments.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been associated with poorer outcomes in patients with pronounced low back pain (LBP) as compared to patients with predominant leg pain. This cross registry study assessed potential benefits of the interlaminar coflex® device as an add-on to bony decompression alone.
methodsPatients with lumbar decompression plus coflex® (SWISSspine registry) were compared with decompressed controls (Spine Tango registry). Inclusion criteria were LSS and a preoperative back pain level of ≥5 points. 1:1 propensity score-based matching was performed. Outcome measures were back and leg pain relief, COMI score improvement, patient satisfaction, complication, and revision rates.
results50 matched pairs without residual significant differences but age were created. At the 7-9 months follow-up interval the coflex® group had higher back (p=0.014) and leg pain relief (p<0.001) and COMI score improvement (p=0.029) than the decompression group. Patient satisfaction was 90% in both groups. No revision was documented in the coflex® and one in the decompression group (2.0%). DISCUSSION: In the short-term, lumbar decompression with coflex® compared with decompression alone in patients with LSS and pronounced LBP at baseline is a safe and effective treatment option that appears beneficial regarding clinical and functional outcomes. However, residual confounding of non-measured covariables may have partially influenced our findings. Also, despite careful inclusion and exclusion of cases the cross registry approach introduces a potential for selection bias that we could not totally control for and that makes additional studies necessary.
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.