ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
A minimum 8-year follow-up comparative study of decompression and coflex stabilization with decompression and fusion.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus interspinous stabilization in lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
- Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of interlaminar coflex dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with minimum 15-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Low-Profile Posterior Lumbar Fusion Combined With Proximal Interlaminar Coflex Dynamic Fixation for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- 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 clinical efficacy and radiological findings of interspinous dynamic stabilization system versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Five-year radiological outcomes between decompression alone and decompression with an interlaminar device for lumbar spinal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Effects of dynamic and rigid implantation on biomechanical characteristics of different sagittal alignment lumbar after single- or double-level spinal fixations: a finite-element modeling study.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Complications and radiographic changes after implantation of interspinous process devices: average eight-year follow-up.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
- 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
- Biomechanical comparative analysis of effects of dynamic and rigid fusion on lumbar motion with different sagittal parameters: AnFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study aimed to compare the outcomes of decompression and interlaminar stabilisation with those of decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) at a minimum 8-year follow-up. The current study also aimed to analyse the risk factors of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). A total of 82 consecutive patients with LDD who underwent surgery between June 2007 and February 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 39 underwent decompression and Coflex interspinous stabilisation (Coflex group) and 43 underwent decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (PLIF group). All patients had a minimum of 8-years of follow-up data. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and the risk factors of developing radiographic ASD were also evaluated. The Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale leg and back pain scores of both groups significantly improved compared with the baseline (all P<0.05), and no difference were indicated between the two groups at each follow-up time point (P>0.05). The Coflex group exhibited preserved mobility (P<0.001), which was associated with a decreased amount of blood loss (P<0.001), shorter duration of surgery (P=0.001), shorter duration of hospital stay and a lower incidence of ASD (12.8 vs. 32.56%; P=0.040) compared with the fusion group. The current study indicated that coflex and fusion technologies are safe and effective for the treatment of LDD, based on long-term follow-up data. However, Coflex interspinous stabilisation was revealed to reduce ASD incidence. Under strict indications, Coflex interspinous stabilisation is an effective and safe treatment method.
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.