ArticleMedicine2020
A new interspinous process distraction device BacFuse in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with 5 years follow-up study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 24-Month Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using a Minimally Invasive Interspinous Fixation Device versus Standard Open Direct Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Comparison.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Interspinous process fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion following decompression for single-level grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective propensity score-matched study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Comparison of Coflex dynamic stabilization with bacfuse static stabilization for lumbar degenerative disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Biomechanical characteristics of a novel interspinous distraction fusion device in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Oblique lateral interbody fusion with internal fixations in the treatment for cross-segment degenerative lumbar spine disease (L2-3 and L4-5) finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Instrumented Posterior Arthrodesis of the Lumbar Spine: Prospective Study Evaluating Fusion Outcomes in Patients Receiving an Interspinous Fixation Device for the Treatment of Degenerative Spine Diseases.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore a suitable indication of interspinous process distraction device for lumbar spinal stenosis with BacFuse.Patients of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who experienced interspinous process distraction device surgery with BacFuse from June 2014 to January 2015 in our institute were included. We classified LSS into central and lateral types, and then divided these into severe and moderate according to the degree of stenosis. Each type was divided into 2 groups. Patients in group A underwent distraction without bone decompression (stand-alone), while patients in group B underwent bone decompression combined with distraction. Follow-up was performed at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) was recorded to assess the patient's postoperative condition at each follow-up.A total of 142 patients were available for follow up at each time interval. There was a significant difference between the preoperative and final follow-up ZCQ scores for every LSS type. In addition, there was no difference between group A and group B in the postoperative ZCQ scores with the exception of the lateral severe type. In the study, 22 of the 23 patients (95.65%) in the lateral moderate type were considered to have a satisfactory result in group B, with a similar result of 93.33% (14/15) in group A (P = .75). In the lateral severe type, the patient satisfaction rate was 65.22% (15/23) and 90.63% (29/32) in group A and group B (P = .02), respectively. In the central moderate type, the patient satisfaction rate was 81.82% (15/23) and 76.92% (10/13) in group A and group B (P = .77), respectively. Satisfaction rate for the follow-up results in the central severe type reached 57.14% (4/7) in group A, and 54.55% (6/11) in group B (P = .91). Moreover, no relationship was found between satisfaction and neurogenic intermittent claudication.The most suitable indication for BacFuse treatment was the lateral moderate type. For lateral severe patients, distraction combined with decompression is suggested for a higher satisfaction rate. Severe central spinal stenosis was shown to be a relative contraindication for BacFuse.
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.