Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety between Interspinous Process Distraction Device and Open Decompression Surgery in Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of interspinous process distraction device (IPD) compared with open decompression surgery (ODS) in treating lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Literatures were searched in the databases including Cochrane Library, Pubmed, OvidSP, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, and Springerlin. Published reviews were checked to track missed original research papers. The quality and bias of publications with randomized controlled trial were evaluated using the tool for assessing risk of bias in the Cochrane handbook. The quality and bias of publications with cohort trial were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The grades of literatures were evaluated with the guidelines of Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Totally, 21 publications matched the inclusion criteria, including 20 different clinical trials and 54,138 patients. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in improvement rate, Oswestry disability index questionnaire (ODI) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) score of back pain or leg pain between IPD group and ODS group. The postoperation complication rate, perioperation blood loss, hospitalization time, and operation time were lower/shorter in IPD group than ODS group. However, the reoperation rate in IPD group was higher than ODS group. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that IPD has better effects and less complication than ODS. However, because of the higher reoperation rate in IPD than ODS, we failed to conclude that IPD could replace ODS as golden standard but may be a viable alternative in treating lumbar spinal stenosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".