SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2016
Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus interspinous stabilization in lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
- Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Article
- Response to: Comment on "Controversies about Interspinous Process Devices in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases: Past, Present, and Future".BioMed research international · 2017Article
- SPINAL SPECIAL EDITION EDITORIAL.International orthopaedics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur aim is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library through September 2015. Included studies were performed according to eligibility criteria. Data of complication rate, post-operative back visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), range of motion (ROM) at the surgical, proximal and distal segments were extracted and analyzed.
resultsTen studies were selected from 177 citations. The pooled data demonstrated the interspinous spacers group had a lower estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -175.66 ml; 95 % confidence interval [CI], -241.03 to -110.30; p < 0.00001), shorter operative time (WMD: -55.47 min; 95%CI, -74.29 to -36.65; p < 0.00001), larger range of motion (ROM) at the surgical segment (WMD: 3.97 degree; 95%CI, -3.24 to -1.91; p < 0.00001) and more limited ROM at the proximal segment (WMD: -2.58 degree; 95%CI, 2.48 to 5.47; p < 0.00001) after operation. Post-operative back VAS score, ODI score, length of hospital stay, complication rate and ROM at the distal segment showed no difference between the two groups.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggested that interspinous spacers appear to be a safe and effective alternative to PLIF for selective patients with degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. However, more randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still needed to further confirm our results.
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.