ArticleBrain & spine2025
Additional dorsal interspinous stabilisation has no advantage after decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus interspinous stabilization in lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Interspinous devices are an alternative to instrumented fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with radiological instability or deformity. The devices claim to improve clinical symptoms by indirect foraminal decompression with fewer complications and similar functional outcomes compared to conventional fusion techniques, and by avoiding a (further) deterioration of the anatomy of the spine while being less invasive than instrumented fusion. Research question: Do interspinous devices provide a benefit in combination with a decompression of degenerative LSS? Material and methods: In this observational study, 117 patients were treated by decompression surgery alone (n = 37), decompression plus instrumented spinal screw fixation and anterior cage support (n = 41) or decompression plus stabilisation with interspinous devices (n = 39). Pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, and spondylolisthesis were measured on X-ray scans before surgery, 3 and 12 months postoperative. The Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain were also assessed. Generalized Estimating Equation regression models were used to determine the relationship between the outcomes and treatment group over time. Results: After interspinous stabilisation surgery the mean pelvic tilt remained at 22.7°, and the difference between the pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) remained at 10.5°. In all three groups, the ODI decreased by 14-18 points (p<0.01), and the pain levels decreased by 2.6-3.2 points (p<0.01). Conclusion: We found no scientific evidence to support the use of interspinous devices. The sagittal profile could not be stabilised by this intervention, and no clinical advantage over decompression surgery alone was evident.
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.