Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37289411›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2023

Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.

Peter G Whang, Oth Tran, Howard L Rosner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus interspinous stabilization in lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter G WhangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Oth TranBoston Scientific Corporation, Valencia, CA, USA. oth.tran@bsci.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-1839
Howard L RosnerPain Medicine, Anesthesiology, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Boston Scientific (United States) · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), minimally invasive procedures such as an interspinous spacer device without decompression or fusion (ISD) or open surgery (i.e., open decompression or fusion) may relieve symptoms and improve functions when patients fail to respond to conservative therapies. This research compares longitudinal postoperative outcomes and rates of subsequent interventions between LSS patients treated with ISD and those with open decompression or fusion as their first surgical intervention.

methodsThis retrospective, comparative claims analysis identified patients age ≥ 50 years with LSS diagnosis and with a qualifying procedure during 2017-2021 in the Medicare database which includes healthcare encounters in inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients were followed from the qualifying procedure until end of data availability. The outcomes assessed during the follow-up included subsequent surgical interventions, including subsequent fusion and lumbar spine surgeries, long-term complications, and short-term life-threatening events. Additionally, the costs to Medicare during a 3-year follow-up were calculated. Cox proportional hazards, logistic regression, and generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes and costs, adjusted for baseline characteristics.

resultsA total of 400,685 patients who received a qualifying procedure were identified (mean age 71.5 years, 50.7% male). Compared to ISD patients, patients receiving open surgery (i.e., decompression and/or fusion) were more likely to have a subsequent fusion [hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.49 (1.17, 1.89)-2.54 (2.00, 3.23)] or other lumbar spine surgery [HR (CI): 3.05 (2.18, 4.27)-5.72 (4.08, 8.02)]. Short-term life-threatening events [odds ratio (CI): 2.42 (2.03, 2.88)-6.36 (5.33, 7.57)] and long-term complications [HR (CI): 1:31 (1.13, 1.52)-2.38 (2.05, 2.75)] were more likely among the open surgery cohorts. Adjusted mean index costs were lowest for decompression alone (US$7001) and highest for fusion alone ($33,868). ISD patients had significantly lower 1-year complication-related costs than all surgery cohorts and lower 3-year all-cause costs than fusion cohorts.

conclusionsISD resulted in lower risks of short- and long-term complications and lower long-term costs than open decompression and fusion surgeries as a first surgical intervention for LSS.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionSpinal StenosisAgedConstriction, PathologicDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMedicareMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesCost comparisonFusionInterspinous spacerLaminectomyLumbar spinal stenosisPostoperative complicationSurgical decompression

Identifiers

PMID37289411
PMCPMC10329952
OpenAlexW4379768965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.