{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,19]],"date-time":"2026-08-19T19:41:27Z","timestamp":1787168487063,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"Scientific Scholar","content-domain":{"domain":["surgicalneurologyint.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"\n Background:<\/jats:title>\n Interspinous devices (ISD) constitute a minimally invasive (MI) alternative to open surgery (i.e., laminectomy\/decompression with\/without fusion (i.e., posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)\/posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF)) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Biomechanically, static and\/or dynamic ISD \u201coffload\u201d pressure on the disc space, increase intervertebral foraminal\/disc space heights, reverse\/preserve lordosis, limit range of motion (ROM)\/stabilize the surgical level, and reduce adjacent segment disease (ASD). Other benefits reported in the literature included; reduced operative time (OR Time), length of hospital stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and improved outcomes (i.e., ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), and\/or SF-36 (Short-Form 36)).<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods:<\/jats:title>\n Various studies documented the relative efficacy and outcomes of original (i.e., Wallis), current (i.e., X-STOP, Wallis, DIAM, Aperius PercLID), and new generation (i.e., Coflex, Superion Helifix, In-Space) ISD used to treat LSS vs. open surgery.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results:<\/jats:title>\n Although ISD overall resulted in comparable or improved outcomes vs. open surgery, the newer generation ISD provided the greatest reductions in critical cost-saving parameters (i.e., OR time, LOS, and lower reoperation rates of 3.7% for Coflex vs. 11.1% for original\/current ISD) vs. original\/current ISD and open surgery. Further, the 5-year postoperative study showed the average cost of new generation Coflex ISD\/decompressions was $15,182, or $11,681 lower than the average $26,863 amount for PLF.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n Patients undergoing new generation ISD for LSS exhibited comparable or better outcomes, but greater reductions in OR times, EBL, LOS, ROM, and ASD vs. those receiving original\/current ISD or undergoing open surgery.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.25259\/sni_1007_2023","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,19]],"date-time":"2024-01-19T03:40:05Z","timestamp":1705635605000},"page":"17","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":8,"title":["Perspective: Efficacy and outcomes for different lumbar interspinous devices (ISD) vs. open surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)"],"prefix":"10.25259","volume":"15","author":[{"given":"Nancy E.","family":"Epstein","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Professor of Clinical Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, State University of NY at Stony Brook, c\/o Dr. Marc Agulnick, 1122 Franklin Avenue Suite 106, Garden City, NY, USA,"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Marc A.","family":"Agulnick","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Assistant Clinical Professor of Orthopedics, NYU Langone Hospital, Long Island, NY, USA, 1122 Frankling Avenue Suite 106, Garden City, NY, USA."}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"10894","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,19]]},"reference":[{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1022","DOI":"10.12659\/MSM.896706","article-title":"Single-level rigid fixation combined with coflex: A biomechanical study","volume":"22","author":"Che","year":"2016","journal-title":"Med Sci Monit"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"462","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2020.09.040","article-title":"Coflex interspinous process dynamic stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up","volume":"81","author":"Du","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Clin Neurosci"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e19457","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0000000000019457","article-title":"Decompression alone versus fusion and Coflex in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A network meta-analysis","volume":"99","author":"Fan","year":"2020","journal-title":"Medicine (Baltimore)"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-4","first-page":"5155","article-title":"Biomechanical effect of Coflex and X-STOP spacers on the lumbar spine: A finite element analysis","volume":"14","author":"Guo","year":"2022","journal-title":"Am J Transl Res"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"215","DOI":"10.1016\/j.otsr.2014.11.016","article-title":"Biomechanical study of dynamic changes in L4-L5 foramen surface area in flexion and extension after implantation of four interspinous process devices","volume":"101","author":"Hirsch","year":"2015","journal-title":"Orthop Traumatol Surg Res"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E1499","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181e9af93","article-title":"Lumbar interspinous spacers: A systematic review of clinical and biomechanical evidence","volume":"35","author":"Kabir","year":"2010","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"161","DOI":"10.4184\/asj.2014.8.2.161","article-title":"Role of coflex as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis","volume":"8","author":"Kumar","year":"2014","journal-title":"Asian Spine J"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"60","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsu.2017.02.056","article-title":"Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilisation compared with conventional surgical procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"40","author":"Li","year":"2017","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2022.11.141","article-title":"Efficacy and safety of lumbar dynamic stabilization device coflex for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"170","author":"Li","year":"2023","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"585","DOI":"10.1186\/s12891-022-05543-y","article-title":"Biomechanical comparison of different interspinous process devices in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A finite element analysis","volume":"23","author":"Liu","year":"2022","journal-title":"BMC Musculoskelet Disord"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"189","DOI":"10.1007\/s12178-017-9401-z","article-title":"Interspinous implants: Are the new implants better than the last generation? A review","volume":"10","author":"Pintauro","year":"2017","journal-title":"Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e1112","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2019.04.051","article-title":"Biomechanical analysis of different lumbar interspinous process devices: A finite element study","volume":"127","author":"Shen","year":"2019","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"125","DOI":"10.2147\/CEOR.S59194","article-title":"Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex\u00ae interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis","volume":"6","author":"Schmier","year":"2014","journal-title":"Clinicoecon Outcomes Res"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"244","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2009.10.010","article-title":"Determination of the in vivo posterior loading environment of the Coflex interlaminar-interspinous implant","volume":"10","author":"Trautwein","year":"2010","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023\/ref-15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"24","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2016.09.030","article-title":"Evaluation of Coflex interspinous stabilization following decompression compared with decompression and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A minimum 5-year follow-up study","volume":"35","author":"Yuan","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Clin Neurosci"}],"container-title":["Surgical Neurology International"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/perspective-efficacy-and-outcomes-for-different-lumbar-interspinous-devices-isd-vs-open-surgery-to-treat-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-lss\/","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/surgicalint-articles\/perspective-efficacy-and-outcomes-for-different-lumbar-interspinous-devices-isd-vs-open-surgery-to-treat-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-lss\/","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,19]],"date-time":"2024-01-19T03:40:11Z","timestamp":1705635611000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/surgicalint-articles\/perspective-efficacy-and-outcomes-for-different-lumbar-interspinous-devices-isd-vs-open-surgery-to-treat-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-lss\/"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,19]]},"references-count":15,"alternative-id":["10.25259\/SNI_1007_2023"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/sni_1007_2023","relation":{},"ISSN":["2152-7806","2229-5097"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2152-7806","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2229-5097","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,1,19]]},"article-number":"17"}}