Scholarlink

Background <p>Interspinous process devices (IPDs) have been widely promoted as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, their clinical durability, safety, and comparative effectiveness have remained controversial. This review aims to review and synthesize the biomechanical rationale, clinical outcomes, safety profile, and limitations of IPDs for the treatment of LSS.</p> Methods <p>A literature review was conducted using PubMed for clinical studies published between 2000 and 2025 on IPDs. These studies were further categorized by device design, indication, and surgical approach: non-fusion/motion-preserving, fusion/stand-alone, and hybrid/dynamic stabilization.</p> Results <p>Biomechanical studies demonstrate that IPDs can consistently increase canal and foraminal dimensions, selectively restrict lumbar extension, and reduce extension-related intradiscal and facet joint pain while preserving motion in other planes. Clinically, short-term improvement was shown particularly in patients with posture-dependent moderate LSS. However, the durability of benefit varies across devices, and several comparative trials and registry-based analyses display higher reoperation and revision rates compared to conventional decompressive surgery. The most commonly reported complications include device migration/malposition and spinous process fractures, leading to revision procedures. Another prevalent issue is the amount of industry funding among IPD studies, which can also influence reported outcomes.</p> Conclusion <p>IPDs may provide short-term symptomatic relief for selective patients with LSS, but tend to be associated with variable durability and risks of reintervention. However, long-term benefits in pain, function, or quality of life are currently unclear. Structural correction or indirect decompression alone does not reliably lead to symptomatic relief, especially in patients with chronic radiculopathy or central sensitization. Future studies should consist of large randomized controlled trials that are independently funded to determine comparative effectiveness and optimal patient selection.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月9日

查看全文
  • Jimmy Wen,
  • Shannon Dwyer,
  • Megan Kou,
  • Yu-Tung Chen,
  • Allyson Kouche,
  • Sugamjot Badhan,
  • Arsh Alam,
  • Naomi Pai,
  • Megan Diana Hsu,
  • Jose Silva,
  • Foad Elahi

摘要

Background

Interspinous process devices (IPDs) have been widely promoted as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, their clinical durability, safety, and comparative effectiveness have remained controversial. This review aims to review and synthesize the biomechanical rationale, clinical outcomes, safety profile, and limitations of IPDs for the treatment of LSS.

Methods

A literature review was conducted using PubMed for clinical studies published between 2000 and 2025 on IPDs. These studies were further categorized by device design, indication, and surgical approach: non-fusion/motion-preserving, fusion/stand-alone, and hybrid/dynamic stabilization.

Results

Biomechanical studies demonstrate that IPDs can consistently increase canal and foraminal dimensions, selectively restrict lumbar extension, and reduce extension-related intradiscal and facet joint pain while preserving motion in other planes. Clinically, short-term improvement was shown particularly in patients with posture-dependent moderate LSS. However, the durability of benefit varies across devices, and several comparative trials and registry-based analyses display higher reoperation and revision rates compared to conventional decompressive surgery. The most commonly reported complications include device migration/malposition and spinous process fractures, leading to revision procedures. Another prevalent issue is the amount of industry funding among IPD studies, which can also influence reported outcomes.

Conclusion

IPDs may provide short-term symptomatic relief for selective patients with LSS, but tend to be associated with variable durability and risks of reintervention. However, long-term benefits in pain, function, or quality of life are currently unclear. Structural correction or indirect decompression alone does not reliably lead to symptomatic relief, especially in patients with chronic radiculopathy or central sensitization. Future studies should consist of large randomized controlled trials that are independently funded to determine comparative effectiveness and optimal patient selection.