Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31808533›Full record

ReviewPain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2019

Biomechanics and Mechanism of Action of Indirect Lumbar Decompression and the Evolution of a Stand-alone Spinous Process Spacer.

Steven M Falowski, Dawood Sayed, Timothy R Deer, Dane Brescacin, Kevin Liang

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven M FalowskiNeurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Dawood SayedUniversity of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Timothy R DeerThe Center for Pain Relief, Spine and Nerve Centers of The Virginias, Charleston, West Virginia, USA.
Dane BrescacinFive Corners, Artarmon, NSW, Australia.
Kevin LiangMilestone Research Organization, San Diego, California, USA.
The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias · USUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveObjective Interspinous process spacers are used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by preventing extension at the implanted level and reducing claudication, which is a common symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis. This review assessed the current safety and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatments and the biomechanical effects of spinal position, range of motion, and the use of interspinous process spacers.

methodMethod EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the safety and performance of nonsurgical treatment, including physical therapy and pharmacological treatment, and surgical treatment, including direct and indirect lumbar decompression treatment. Results were supplemented with manual searches to include studies reporting on the use of interspinous process spacers and the review of biomechanical testing performed on the Superion device.

resultsResults The effects of spinal position in extension and flexion have been shown to have an impact in the variation in dimensions of the spinal canal and foramina areas. Overall studies have shown that spinal positions from flexion to extension reduce the spinal canal and foramina dimensions and increase ligamentum flavum thickness. Biomechanical test data have shown that the Superion device resists extension and reduces angular movement at the implantation level and provides significant segmental stability.

conclusionsConclusions Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive, low-risk procedure for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, which has been shown to have a low safety profile by maintaining sagittal alignment, limiting the potential for device dislodgment or migration, and to preserve mobility and structural elements.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraeNeurosurgical ProceduresProstheses and ImplantsRange of Motion, ArticularSpinal StenosisBiomechanicsIndirect DecompressionInterspinous Process DevicesLumbar Spinal StenosisSuperionX-Stop

Identifiers

PMID31808533
PMCPMC7101165
OpenAlexW2993382064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.