Article Text

PDF
Interspinous process device versus standard conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: randomised controlled trial
  1. Wouter A Moojen1,2,
  2. Mark P Arts2,
  3. Wilco C H Jacobs1,
  4. Erik W van Zwet3,
  5. M Elske van den Akker-van Marle4,
  6. Bart W Koes5,
  7. Carmen L A M Vleggeert-Lankamp1,
  8. Wilco C Peul1,2
  9. for the Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group (SIPS)
  1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague, Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center
  4. 4Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center
  5. 5Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to: W A Moojen; w.a.moojen{at}lumc.nl

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.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.