{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,3]],"date-time":"2026-10-03T16:26:37Z","timestamp":1791044797324,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":22,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,21]],"date-time":"2017-03-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1490054400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/www.springer.com\/tdm"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,6]]},"DOI":"10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,21]],"date-time":"2017-03-21T09:59:41Z","timestamp":1490090381000},"page":"182-188","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":43,"title":["Interspinous implants to treat spinal stenosis"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"10","author":[{"given":"Raj J.","family":"Gala","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Glenn S.","family":"Russo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Peter G.","family":"Whang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,21]]},"reference":[{"issue":"17","key":"9413_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2046","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199609010-00024","volume":"21","author":"RW Porter","year":"1996","unstructured":"Porter RW. Spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(17):2046\u201352.","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"issue":"8","key":"9413_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"818","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMcp0708097","volume":"358","author":"JN Katz","year":"2008","unstructured":"Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):818\u201325. doi:\n10.1056\/NEJMcp0708097\n\n.","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"9413_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"319","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-197812000-00004","volume":"3","author":"WH Kirkaldy-Willis","year":"1978","unstructured":"Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, Reilly J. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978;3(4):319\u201328.","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"issue":"4","key":"9413_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"467","DOI":"10.2106\/00004623-197557040-00004","volume":"57","author":"NJ Rosenberg","year":"1975","unstructured":"Rosenberg NJ. Degenerative spondylolisthesis. Predisposing factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(4):467\u201374.","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am"},{"issue":"1","key":"9413_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199201000-00001","volume":"17","author":"JA Turner","year":"1992","unstructured":"Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Deyo R. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(1):1\u20138.","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"issue":"3","key":"9413_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"255","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3180331352","volume":"20","author":"CM Bono","year":"2007","unstructured":"Bono CM, Vaccaro AR. Interspinous process devices in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20(3):255\u201361. doi:\n10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3180331352\n\n.","journal-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech"},{"issue":"7","key":"9413_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"744","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000157483.28505.e3","volume":"30","author":"JC Richards","year":"2005","unstructured":"Richards JC, Majumdar S, Lindsey DP, Beaupre GS, Yerby SA. The treatment mechanism of an interspinous process implant for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):744\u20139.","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"9413_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"975052","DOI":"10.1155\/2014\/975052","volume":"2014","author":"R Gazzeri","year":"2014","unstructured":"Gazzeri R, Galarza M, Alfieri A. Controversies about interspinous process devices in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases: past, present, and future. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:975052. doi:\n10.1155\/2014\/975052\n\n.","journal-title":"Biomed Res Int"},{"key":"9413_CR9","unstructured":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration. coflex Interlaminar Technology. 2014. \nhttp:\/\/www.fda.gov\/MedicalDevices\/ProductsandMedicalProcedures\/DeviceApprovalsandClearances\/Recently-ApprovedDevices\/ucm327502.htm\n\n. Accessed 12\/1\/2016."},{"issue":"2","key":"9413_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"169","DOI":"10.1227\/neu.0000000000001237","volume":"79","author":"HW Bae","year":"2016","unstructured":"\u2022\u2022 Bae HW, Davis RJ, Lauryssen C, Leary S, Maislin G, Musacchio Jr MJ. Three-year follow-up of the prospective, randomized, controlled trial of coflex interlaminar stabilization vs instrumented fusion in patients with lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(2):169\u201381. doi:\n10.1227\/neu.0000000000001237\n\n. The FDA post-approval study, presenting 36 month follow-up data of the randomized, controlled trial, comparing decompression and coflex with decompression and instrumented fusion. Patients underwent one- or two-level surgery","journal-title":"Neurosurgery"},{"issue":"6","key":"9413_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1275","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-016-3199-y","volume":"40","author":"XL Chen","year":"2016","unstructured":"\u2022 Chen XL, Guan L, Liu YZ, Yang JC, Wang WL, Hai Y. Interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion versus double-segment fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum follow-up of three years. Int Orthop. 2016;40(6):1275\u201383. doi:\n10.1007\/s00264-016-3199-y\n\n. A retrospective cohort study evaluating the \u201ctopping off\u201d technique. The authors compared 88 patients who underwent two-level lumbar decompression and fusion, with 76 patients who underwent one-level fusion with Coflex implantation in the adjacent superior level. Average follow-up was around 48 months","journal-title":"Int Orthop"},{"issue":"4","key":"9413_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"355","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2015.02.012","volume":"30","author":"C Kong","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022 Kong C, Lu S, Hai Y, Zang L. Biomechanical effect of interspinous dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion on range of motion of the transition segment and the adjacent segment. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30(4):355\u20139. doi:\n10.1016\/j.clinbiomech.2015.02.012\n\n. Biomechanical study of the \u201ctopping off\u201d technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating four different configurations: 1) no intervention, 2) fusion at L5\/S1, 3) fusion at L5\/S1 with decompression at L4\/5, and 4) fusion at L5\/S1 with decompression and Coflex insertion at L4\/5.","journal-title":"Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)"},{"key":"9413_CR13","unstructured":"\u2022 Che W, Chen Q, Ma YQ, Jiang YQ, Yuan W, Zhou XG et al. Single-level rigid fixation combined with Coflex: a biomechanical study. Medical Science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2016;22:1022\u20131027. Biomechanical study of the \u201ctopping off\u201d technique on six cadaver lumbosacral spines, evaluating two different configurations: 1) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4\/5, 2) pedicle-screw rod fixation at L4\/5 with Coflex insertion at L3\/4."},{"issue":"10","key":"9413_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2228","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-015-4124-6","volume":"24","author":"C Roder","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022 Roder C, Baumgartner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E. Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(10):2228\u201335. doi:\n10.1007\/s00586-015-4124-6\n\n. Database retrospective chart review, comparing 50 matched pairs of patients who either underwent lumbar decompression alone or lumbar decompression with Coflex insertion. Follow-up was less than one year.","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"9413_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"361","DOI":"10.2174\/1874325001105010361","volume":"5","author":"W Bini","year":"2011","unstructured":"Bini W, Miller LE, Block JE. Minimally invasive treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis with the superion interspinous spacer. The open orthopaedics journal. 2011;5:361\u20137. doi:\n10.2174\/1874325001105010361\n\n.","journal-title":"The open orthopaedics journal"},{"key":"9413_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"227","DOI":"10.2147\/cia.s23656","volume":"6","author":"S Shabat","year":"2011","unstructured":"Shabat S, Miller LE, Block JE, Gepstein R. Minimally invasive treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with a novel interspinous spacer. Clin Interv Aging. 2011;6:227\u201333. doi:\n10.2147\/cia.s23656\n\n.","journal-title":"Clin Interv Aging"},{"key":"9413_CR17","unstructured":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Superion InterSpinous Spacer. 2015. Accessed 12\/01\/2016."},{"issue":"6","key":"9413_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"763","DOI":"10.1586\/17434440.2015.1100071","volume":"12","author":"C Lauryssen","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022 Lauryssen C, Jackson RJ, Baron JM, Tallarico RA, Lavelle WF, Deutsch H, et al. Stand-alone interspinous spacer versus decompressive laminectomy for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert review of medical devices. 2015;12(6):763\u20139. doi:\n10.1586\/17434440.2015.1100071\n\n. Patients from the Superion clinical trial were compared against historical controls for decompressive laminectomy. Outcomes were evaluated at 24 months after intervention","journal-title":"Expert review of medical devices"},{"key":"9413_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"657","DOI":"10.2147\/jpr.s92633","volume":"8","author":"VV Patel","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022\u2022 Patel VV, Nunley PD, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Davis RP, et al. Superion\u00ae interspinous spacer for treatment of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: durable three-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2015a;8:657\u201362. doi:\n10.2147\/jpr.s92633\n\n. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 36 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop","journal-title":"J Pain Res"},{"issue":"5","key":"9413_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"275","DOI":"10.1097\/brs.0000000000000735","volume":"40","author":"VV Patel","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022 Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR, Bradley WD, Nunley PD, Davis RP, et al. Superion interspinous process spacer for intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis: two-year results from a randomized controlled FDA-IDE pivotal trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015b;40(5):275\u201382. doi:\n10.1097\/brs.0000000000000735\n\n. The FDA investigational device exemption study, presenting 24 months of data on the prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Superion and X-Stop","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"9413_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"125","DOI":"10.2147\/ceor.s59194","volume":"6","author":"JK Schmier","year":"2014","unstructured":"\u2022 Schmier JK, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K. Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex\u00ae interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR. 2014;6:125\u201331. doi:\n10.2147\/ceor.s59194\n\n. Cost-effectiveness study, looking at five-year costs, of decompression and Coflex insertion compared to decompression and instrumented posterolateral fusion","journal-title":"ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR"},{"key":"9413_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"28","DOI":"10.14444\/2028","volume":"9","author":"SL Parker","year":"2015","unstructured":"\u2022 Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the Superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:28. doi:\n10.14444\/2028\n\n. Cost-effectiveness study comparing conservative care, decompression, or Superion implant, for treating lumbar spinal stenosis. Cost analyses were evaluated at the two-year mark.","journal-title":"Int J Spine Surg"}],"container-title":["Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2017,5,17]],"date-time":"2017-05-17T06:19:39Z","timestamp":1495001979000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,21]]},"references-count":22,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,6]]}},"alternative-id":["9413"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12178-017-9413-8","relation":{},"ISSN":["1935-973X","1935-9748"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1935-973X","type":"print"},{"value":"1935-9748","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,21]]}}}