ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2017
Interspinous implants: are the new implants better than the last generation? A review.
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 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world complications, utilization patterns, and patient selection for the vertiflex interspinous process device: A national cohort analysis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Perspective: Efficacy and outcomes for different lumbar interspinous devices (ISD) vs. open surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
- Prospective 5-year follow-up of L5-S1 versus L4-5 midline decompression and interspinous-interlaminar fixation as a stand-alone treatment for spinal stenosis compared with laminectomies.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- Biomechanical characteristics of a novel interspinous distraction fusion device in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- A novel minimally invasive technique of inter-spinal distraction fusion surgery for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis in octogenarians: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
- Interspinous Process (ISP) Devices in Comparison to the Use of Traditional Posterior Spinal Instrumentation.Cureus · 2021Review
- Determination of Work Relative Value Units for Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis by Open Decompression and Interlaminar Stabilization.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of Adverse Outcomes Following Placement of Superion Interspinous Spacer Device Versus Laminectomy and Laminotomy.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Three-Dimensional Volumetric Changes and Clinical Outcomes after Decompression with DIAM™ Implantation in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Article
- Interlaminar stabilization offers greater biomechanical advantage compared to interspinous stabilization after lumbar decompression: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2020Article
- A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Axial loading during MRI reveals insufficient effect of percutaneous interspinous implants (Aperius™ PerCLID™) on spinal canal area.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 · 2020Article
- Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer in Spinal-Canal-Stenosis Treatment: Pros and Cons.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Review
- [Lumbar spinal stenosis : From the diagnosis to the correct treatment].Der Orthopade · 2019Article
- Interlaminar stabilization and decompression for the treatment of bilateral juxtafacet cysts: Case report and literature review.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
- Utilization of Interspinous Devices Throughout the United States Over a Recent Decade: An Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.Global spine journal · 2018Article
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
purpose of reviewInterspinous process devices (IPDs) are used in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The purpose of this review is to compare the first generation with the next-generation devices in terms of complications, device failure, reoperation rates, symptom relief, and outcome. RECENT
findingsThirty-seven studies were included from 2011 to 2016. Device failure occurred at a mean of 3.7%, with a lower tendency to happen with next-generation IPDs. Reoperations occurred at a lower rate with the next-generation devices, with a mean follow up of 24 months (3.7% vs. 11.1%). The clinical outcome is not influenced by the type of IPD. The long-term functionality of these devices is questionable, with radiologic changes and recurrence of symptoms often seen by 2 years following implantation. Next-generation devices do not appear to be subject to the same "bounce back" effect of symptom re-emergence after several years.
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.