ScholarLens Back to search
2014•British Journal of Sports MedicineRequires access

Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial

Wouter A. Moojen, Mark P. Arts, Wilco C. H. Jacobs, Erik W. van Zwet, M. Elske van den Akker‐van Marle, Bart Willem Koes, Carmen L. A. Vleggeert-Lankamp, Wilco C. Peul

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Is interspinous process device implantation more effective in the short term (eight weeks) than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of interspinous implants did not result in a better outcome than conventional decompression, but the reoperation rate was significantly higher. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Bony decompression and treatment with interspinous process devices are superior to conservative and non-surgical treatment for intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Interspinous implants surgery is not superior to bony decompression, and the reoperation rate is significantly higher.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

STUDY QUESTION: Is interspinous process device implantation more effective in the short term (eight weeks) than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of interspinous implants did not result in a better outcome than conventional decompression, but the reoperation rate was significantly higher. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Bony decompression and treatment with interspinous process devices are superior to conservative and non-surgical treatment for intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Interspinous implants surgery is not superior to bony decompression, and the reoperation rate is significantly higher.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Is interspinous process device implantation more effective in the short term (eight weeks) than conventional surgical decompression for patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of interspinous implants did not result in a better outcome than conventional decompression, but the reoperation rate was significantly higher. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Bony decompression and treatment with interspinous process devices are superior to conservative and non-surgical treatment for intermittent neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Interspinous implants surgery is not superior to bony decompression, and the reoperation rate is significantly higher.

Key concepts: Medicine, Lumbar spinal stenosis, Neurogenic claudication, Decompression, Surgery, Intermittent claudication, Spinal stenosis, Surgical decompression

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial — Research Paper | ScholarLens