ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Posterior dynamic stabilization in the lumbar spine - 24 months results of a prospective clinical and radiological study with an interspinous distraction device.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- The changing paradigm of spine motion preservation: A bibliometric analysis of dynamic posterior stabilization.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 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
- Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- The use of minimally invasive interspinous process devices for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a narrative literature review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Review
- Experimental evaluation of precision and accuracy of RSA in the lumbar spine.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 · 2021Article
- A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterspinous distraction devices (IDD) are due to maintain or restore intersegmental range of motion (iROM) in a controlled fashion with the aim of stabilization the affected level dynamically. The following study is the first to present clinical and radiological data with the Wallis® spacer during a follow-up of 24 months.
methodsTen patients underwent posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) of the lumbar spine with an IDD (Wallis® spacer) and were controlled clinically and radiologically after 3, 6, 12, and 24 months in a prospective study design. Pain intensity, functional disability and life quality were assessed by use of subjective scores. Motion analyses were performed with the help of lateral functional x-rays to determine the iROM of the operated segments and total ROM (tROM) of the lumbar spine. In addition, roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) was used to measure the iROM of the treated levels.
resultsDuring the postoperative course pain and disability most clinical scores were significantly improved. After 24 months we observed statistically significant reduction in back pain intensity with a mean value of 6.0 on visual analog scale (VAS) before surgery and of 2.7 at the latest evaluation. The leg pain was also decreased without statistical significance from 4.7 preoperatively to 2.1 at final follow-up. The functional disability according to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RM) was decreased both with statistical significance at all examination dates with a mean value in ODI of 40.0 % before operation and of 17.3 % after 2 years and an initial mean value in RM of 55.2 and of 23.5 % after latest follow-up. After 24 months, the results of the health related quality of life score also showed much better values with only two exceptions. The iROM of the treated levels was reduced during each follow-up examination with preserved residual mobility. Directly postoperatively and after 3 and 12 months intersegmental mobility was statistically significantly decreased with an average iROM of 6.62° before operation and of 2.69° few days after surgery, of 3.79° and 3.16° 3 and 12 months later. At 6 (4.37°) and 24 (4.01°) months follow-up iROM was also but not statistically significantly reduced. The mean tROM did not change significantly during all postoperative controls.
conclusionsThe radiological findings support the thesis of posterior dynamic stabilization by the used implant. The positive clinical findings should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of patients and the missing control group.
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.