SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Is the interspinous process device safe and effective in elderly patients with lumbar degeneration? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Interspinous Spacers in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Mapping Gap and Scoping Review.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Improved foraminal expansion and pain scores following placement of novel expandable interlaminar stabilization device for lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Lumbar stand-alone interspinous fixation without decompression or bone graft: A 14-year cautionary case of late mechanical failure.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Coflex Interspinous Stabilization with Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Average 14-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background contextLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common diseases affecting the elderly that is characterized by the narrowing of the spinal canal and peripheral neural pathways which may cause back pain and neurogenic intermittent claudication in affected patients. Recently, as an alternative treatment between conservative therapy and decompression surgery, interspinous process device (IPD) such as X-stop, Coflex, DIAM, Aperius, Wallis, etc., has gained enough popularity. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IPD in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis compared with decompression surgery. STUDY
designThis study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PATIENT SAMPLE: 555 patients' samples were collected for this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Visual Analogue Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index were analyzed, as well as the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire For efficacy evaluation. Complication and reoperation rate was utilized for the assessment of safety.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed through Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until October 2023. Among the studies meeting the eligible criteria, any study in which IPD was utilized in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis was included in the current review. For efficacy evaluation, the Visual Analogue Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index were analyzed, as well as the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Complication and reoperation rates were utilized for the assessment of safety.
resultsFive randomized controlled trials with 555 patients were included. There were no significant differences in VAS leg pain (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.15) and back pain (SMD 0.09, 95%CI-0.27 to 0.45), ODI scores (MD 1.08, 95% CI - 11.23 to 13.39) and ZCQ physical function (MD-0.09, 95% CI-0.22 to 0.05) for IPD compared with decompression surgery. In terms of ZCQ symptom severity (MD - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.27 to - 016), decompression surgery showed superior to the IPD. As for complications (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.27), the IPD had no advantages compared to decompression surgery, whereas inferior to it in reoperation rate (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.96).
conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicated no superiority in the clinical outcome for IPD compared with decompression surgery. However, more clinical studies are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of IPD.
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.