Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life 1 Year after Open Microsurgical Decompression or Implantation of an Interspinous Stand-Alone Spacer

Abstract

Implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer yields clinical success comparable to open decompression, at least within the first year of FU. The 1-year conversion rate of 27.3% is, however, decidedly too high.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety between Interspinous Process Distraction Device and Open Decompression Surgery in Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta Analysis

“…One trial published 2 articles at different times because of different periods of follow-up [22,23]. The other 20 trials included 3 randomized controlled trials [24][25][26], 12 prospective cohort trials [13,22,23,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36], 5 retrospective cohort trials [13,[37][38][39][40], and 1 case-control trial [41].…”

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

“…Only a few studies have compared surgical and non-surgical treatments, and study findings are inconsistent 26,27 . New techniques such as insertion of interspinous standalone spacers have shown a high rate of reoperation, with as many as 27% of patients undergoing a second operation in the first year 29 . Generally speaking, the risk of reoperation is approximately 17% 28 .…”

Interspinous process devices for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

“…Four hundred twenty-six of them were excluded after title and abstract review. Six additional articles were excluded after full text reading: five had a non-RCT study design [12,18,21,22,26], and one was a retrospective study [10]. Finally, 11 articles [1,2,4,5,11,15,16,20,28,33,34] describing eight RCTs, of which five studies [1,4,5,11,16,20,33,34] carried out in multiple centers, were included in this study.…”