ReviewSurgical neurology international2024
Perspective: Efficacy and outcomes for different lumbar interspinous devices (ISD) vs. open surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus interspinous stabilization in lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- The renewed role of interspinous devices: the InSpan system-a narrative review on surgical indications.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- 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
- Improved foraminal expansion and pain scores following placement of novel expandable interlaminar stabilization device for lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Influence of decompression by laminotomy and percutaneous tansforaminal endoscopic surgery on postoperative wound healing, pain intensity, and lumbar function in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Chiropractic management of a Veteran with persistent spinal pain syndrome-2 status-post L3-L5 laminectomy and Coflex interlaminar stabilization: a case report.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Readmission rates and hospital charges: a comparative study of surgical interventions in degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal canal stenosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- 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
- A retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative clinical outcomes and radiographic results between patients undergoing TLIF and OLIF surgeries.BMC surgery · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interspinous devices (ISD) constitute a minimally invasive (MI) alternative to open surgery (i.e., laminectomy/decompression with/without fusion (i.e., posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)/posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF)) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Biomechanically, static and/or dynamic ISD "offload" pressure on the disc space, increase intervertebral foraminal/disc space heights, reverse/preserve lordosis, limit range of motion (ROM)/stabilize the surgical level, and reduce adjacent segment disease (ASD). Other benefits reported in the literature included; reduced operative time (OR Time), length of hospital stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and improved outcomes (i.e., ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), and/or SF-36 (Short-Form 36)). Methods: Various studies documented the relative efficacy and outcomes of original (i.e., Wallis), current (i.e., X-STOP, Wallis, DIAM, Aperius PercLID), and new generation (i.e., Coflex, Superion Helifix, In-Space) ISD used to treat LSS vs. open surgery. Results: Although ISD overall resulted in comparable or improved outcomes vs. open surgery, the newer generation ISD provided the greatest reductions in critical cost-saving parameters (i.e., OR time, LOS, and lower reoperation rates of 3.7% for Coflex vs. 11.1% for original/current ISD) vs. original/current ISD and open surgery. Further, the 5-year postoperative study showed the average cost of new generation Coflex ISD/decompressions was $15,182, or $11,681 lower than the average $26,863 amount for PLF. Conclusion: Patients undergoing new generation ISD for LSS exhibited comparable or better outcomes, but greater reductions in OR times, EBL, LOS, ROM, and ASD vs. those receiving original/current ISD or undergoing open surgery.
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.