ArticleSpine surgery and related research2026
Preoperative Computed Tomography-Based Prediction of Device Size for Lumbar Stabilization with Interspinous Process Device for Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar stabilization using an interspinous process device is a surgical option for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. This study retrospectively evaluated the relationship between preoperative computed tomography (CT) measurements and inserted device size. Methods: A total of 21 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar stabilization with an interspinous process device (Swift system Results: The mean basal and dorsal distances were 6.5±2.1 mm and 5.3±2.4 mm, respectively. In 33 levels (93.5%) with a basal distance ≥4 mm, the device was successfully inserted between the spinous process bases. In the two levels with a basal distance of 2 mm, the device could not be inserted at the base and was placed dorsally. Except for these two cases, the size of the inserted device significantly correlated with the basal distance (p<0.01, r=0.694). Conclusions: The basal interspinous distance on preoperative CT was useful for predicting the appropriate device size. The device could be inserted between the spinous processes in all cases with a basal distance of ≥4 mm.
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.