ArticlePloS one2020
Effect of different designs of interspinous process devices on the instrumented and adjacent levels after double-level lumbar decompression surgery: A finite element analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Effectiveness of Interspinous Process Devices in Managing Adjacent Segment Degeneration Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Biomechanical evaluation of modified and traditional cortical bone trajectory technique on adjacent segment degeneration in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion-finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Hybrid pedicle screw and modified cortical bone trajectory technique in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2023Article
- Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Interspinous Process Devices Do Not Reduce Intervertebral Foramina and Discs Heights on Adjacent Segments.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Biomechanical effects of lumbar fusion surgery on adjacent segments using musculoskeletal models of the intact, degenerated and fused spine.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, various designs and material manufactured interspinous process devices (IPDs) are on the market in managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, atraumatic fracture of the intervening spinous process has been reported in patients, particularly, double or multiple level lumbar decompression surgery with IPDs. This study aimed to biomechanically investigate the effects of few commercial IPDs, namely DIAMTM, CoflexTM, and M-PEEK, which were implanted into the L2-3, L3-4 double-level lumbar spinal processes. A validated finite element model of musculoskeletal intact lumbar spinal column was modified to accommodate the numerical analysis of different implants. The range of motion (ROM) between each vertebra, stiffness of the implanted level, intra stress on the intervertebral discs and facet joints, and the contact forces on spinous processes were compared. Among the three implants, the Coflex system showed the largest ROM restriction in extension and caused the highest stress over the disc annulus at the adjacent levels, as well as the sandwich phenomenon on the spinous process at the instrumented levels. Further, the DIAM device provided a superior loading-sharing between the two bridge supports, and the M-PEEK system offered a superior load-sharing from the superior spinous process to the lower pedicle screw. The limited motion at the instrumented segments were compensated by the upper and lower adjacent functional units, however, this increasing ROM and stress would accelerate the degeneration of un-instrumented segments.
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.