ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2021
The use of minimally invasive interspinous process devices for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a narrative literature review.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Revision surgical technique for laterally placed MinuteManJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Five-year outcomes from a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive interspinous fixation versus open direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Increasing adverse event reports coincide with declining Medicare billings for interspinous devices.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Finite element analysis of the pedicle screw in lumbar transpedicular dynamic stabilization that penetrates the lateral cortex of the vertebral pedicle.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Full Endoscopy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Analysis of 1027 Adverse Events Reports for Interspinous Process Devices From the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Posterior Lateral Arthrodesis as a Treatment Option for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Safety and Early Clinical Outcomes.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive interspinous process devices (IPD), including interspinous distraction devices (IDD) and interspinous stabilizers (ISS), are increasingly utilized for treating symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). There is ongoing debate around their efficacy and safety over traditional decompression techniques with and without interbody fusion (IF). This study presents a comprehensive review of IPD and investigates if: (I) minimally invasive IDD can effectively substitute direct neural decompression and (II) ISS are appropriate substitutes for fusion after decompression. Articles published up to 22
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.