{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027627035027133696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004440059200789344, 'mean_word_length': 5.782608695652174, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The use of minimally invasive interspinous process devices for the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a narrative literature review.

Minimally invasive interspinous process devices (IPD), including interspinous distraction devices (IDD) and interspinous stabilizers (ISS), are increasingly utilized for treating symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). There is ongoing debate around their efficacy and safety over traditional decompression techniques with and without interbody fusion (IF). This study presents a comprehensive review of IPD and investigates if: (I) minimally invasive IDD can effectively substitute direct neural decompression and (II) ISS are appropriate substitutes for fusion after decompression. Articles published up to 22nd January 2020 were obtained from PubMed search. Relevant articles published in the English language were selected and critically reviewed. Observational studies across different IPD brands consistently show significant improvements in clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction at short-term follow-up. Compared to non-operative treatment, mini-open IDD was had significantly greater quality of life and clinical outcome improvements at 2-year follow-up. Compared to open decompression, mini-open IDD had similar clinical outcomes, but associated with higher complications, reoperation risks and costs. Compared to open decompression with concurrent IF, ISS had comparable clinical outcomes with reduced operative time, blood loss, length of stay and adjacent segment mobility. Mini-open IDD had better outcomes over non-operative treatment in mild-moderate LCS at 2-year follow-up, but had similar outcomes with higher risk of re-operations than open decompression. ISS with open decompression may be a suitable alternative to decompression and IF for stable grade 1 spondylolisthesis and central stenosis. To further characterize this procedure, future studies should focus on examining enhanced new generation IPD devices, longer-term follow-up and careful patient selection.