ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2017
Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of interlaminar coflex dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with minimum 15-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Low-Profile Posterior Lumbar Fusion Combined With Proximal Interlaminar Coflex Dynamic Fixation for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Real-world complications, utilization patterns, and patient selection for the vertiflex interspinous process device: A national cohort analysis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Coflex dynamic stabilization with bacfuse static stabilization for lumbar degenerative disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Lumbar Stabilization with Interspinous Process Devices for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- A comparison of MRI and intraoperative measurements to determine interspinous spacer device size.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 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
- Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2024Review
- Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study and Two-Dimensional Operative Video.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- A minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure after an interspinous spacer device implantation: an uncommon order of treatment with a successful outcome.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
- A Radiological Evaluation of Lumbar Spinous Processes and Interspinous Spaces, Including Clinical Implications.Cureus · 2021Article
- Current concepts of spondylosis and posterior spinal motion preservation for radiologists.Skeletal radiology · 2021Review
- A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of Adverse Outcomes Following Placement of Superion Interspinous Spacer Device Versus Laminectomy and Laminotomy.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Determination of Work Relative Value Units for Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis by Open Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Biomechanical changes of degenerated adjacent segment and intact lumbar spine after lumbosacral topping-off surgery: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion).Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewLumbar spinal stenosis has historically been treated with open decompressive surgery which is associated with significant morbidity and may give rise to various complications. Interspinous spacers (ISS) have been developed as a less invasive strategy which may serve to avoid many of these risks. The two current spacers that are FDA approved and commercially available are the Coflex and Superion devices. The goal is to review these two implants, their indications, and patient selection. RECENT
findingsThe Coflex device has been shown to be analogous to decompression and fusion when treating moderate spinal stenosis. It provides dynamic stability after a decompression is performed, without the rigidity of pedicle-screw instrumentation. Recent results show improved outcomes in Coflex patients at 3 years of follow-up, as compared to decompression and fusion. The Superion implant is placed percutaneously in the interspinous space with minimal disruption of spinal anatomy. When compared to the X-Stop device (which is no longer available), the Superion implant shows improved outcomes at 3 years of follow-up. ISS are lesser invasive options as compared to formal decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
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.