ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Neurosurgical Management of Interspinous Device Complications: A Case Series.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world complications, utilization patterns, and patient selection for the vertiflex interspinous process device: A national cohort analysis.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- Can bone SPECT/CT and 18 F-NaF PET/CT diagnose the cause of persistent pain due to motion sparing devices: a case series.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 · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiologic evaluation of the IntraSPINE non-fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- When Does Intervention End and Surgery Begin? The Role of Interventional Pain Management in the Treatment of Spine Pathology.Current pain and headache reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Best practice guidelines for treating lumbar stenosis include a multidisciplinary approach, ranging from conservative management with physical therapy, medication, and epidural steroid injections to surgical decompression with or without instrumentation. Marketed as an outpatient alternative to a traditional lumbar decompression, interspinous process devices (IPDs) have gained popularity as a minimally invasive stabilization procedure. IPDs have been embraced by non-surgical providers, including physiatrists and anesthesia interventional pain specialists. In the interest of patient safety, it is imperative to formally profile its safety and identify its role in the treatment paradigm for lumbar stenosis. Case Description: We carried out a retrospective review at our institution of neurosurgical consultations for patients with hardware complications following the interspinous device placement procedure. Eight cases within a 3-year period were identified, and patient characteristics and management are illustrated. The series describes the migration of hardware, spinous process fracture, and worsening post-procedural back pain. Conclusions: IPD placement carries procedural risk and requires a careful pre-operative evaluation of patient imaging and surgical candidacy. We recommend neurosurgical consultation and supervision for higher-risk IPD cases.
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.