ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2018
Spinal Stenosis in the Absence of Spondylolisthesis: Can Interlaminar Stabilization at Single and Multi-levels Provide Sustainable Relief?
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the absence of spondylolisthesis, fusion procedures are generally not recommended. However, decompression alone often does not provide long-term clinical success of intractable leg and back pain. Decompression with interlaminar stabilization (ILS) offers a new option within the clinical continuum of care by providing a nonfusion surgical alternative. The objective of this study is to examine the sustainability of decompression with ILS and to understand the clinical success at either 1 or 2 levels as a surgical treatment for nonspondylolisthesis patients with spinal stenosis.
methodsUnder an FDA-regulated investigational device exemption (IDE) study, a total of 322 patients were enrolled in the prospective, randomized trial. This investigation focuses only on the subset of patients (116 total) from this overall cohort who were treated with decompression plus ILS at 1 or 2 levels and who did not present with spondylolisthesis preoperatively. The patients were assessed before and after surgery up to 60 months.
resultsAt 60-month follow up, there was no statistically significant difference in ODI ≥ 15 point improvement between patient populations (81.6% of 1 level, 90.3% of 2 level). At 60 months, 83.1% of 1 level and 86.3% of 2 level patients did not require a secondary surgical procedure. At 60 months, 94.7% of 1 level and 100% of 2 level reported ≥20 mm improvement in Visual Analogue Scale leg pain. Patients reported improvement in their physical state according to Short Form-12 scores (89.3% of 1 level, 88.9% of 2 level). Patient satisfaction at 60 months was 97.4% for 1 level and 93.3% for 2 level.
conclusionsThe therapeutic sustainability for the treatment of spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis with ILS at 1 or 2 levels in the lumbar region has been shown to be safe and efficacious for patients who have failed conservative treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Decompression with ILS offers a nonterminal surgical option for the treatment of the symptomology of spinal stenosis, a progressive degenerative condition, that potentially can provide longer durability and stability than decompression alone.
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.