FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3138587658> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3138587658 abstract "A systematic literature review was conducted on studies comparing interspinous process (ISP) devices to traditional methods of posterior spinal instrumentation (pedicle screw-rod construct), in terms of indications of use, complications, pain assessment, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and return to work. The objective was to analyze, evaluate and summarize the current published literature on the proposed efficacy and clinical and surgical long-term outcomes of the ISP device in comparison to the traditional posterior spinal instrumentation (pedicle screw-rod construct). The ISP device is a minimally invasive and less disruptive alternative to traditional methods of posterior spinal instrumentation (pedicle screw-rod construct). However, very few published literature studies to date have reported the comparison of ISPs in terms of efficacy and clinical and surgical outcomes, to traditional posterior spinal instrumentation. A systematic literature review was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar to evaluate the results of published research that meet the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and to analyze clinical indications and surgical outcomes of the ISP device compared to traditional methods of posterior spinal instrumentation (pedicle screw-rod construct). Inclusion criteria included keywords such as “ISP device, ISP, posterior spinal instrumentation, pedicle screw fixation, bilateral pedicle screws, interbody fusion with posterior spinal instrumentation, lumbar spinal stenosis, and posterior lumbar stability.” No exclusion criteria keywords were included in this literature review. ISPs provide a high degree of spinal stability in multiple planes, including a decreased range of motion restriction in flexion-extension, and comparable results to bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) in axial rotation. The use of the ISP device in adjunct with an interbody fusion, ensures less estimated operative blood loss (EBL), shorter operative time, less bony exposure without the need for extensive soft tissue or muscle retraction, a decrease in the rate of pseudoarthrosis, and a shorter length of hospital stay (LOHS) when compared to the traditional posterior instrumentation (pedicle screw-rod construct). Based on the various published literature reviews noted throughout this research paper, it is safe to conclude, that an ISP device that is accompanied by interbody fusion, including posterior approaches posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF); anterior approaches such as anterior interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral approaches including direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), is considered a credible and an effective minimally invasive option for the treatment of mild to moderate lumbar stenosis and stable low-grade spondylolisthesis (less than two) when compared to the traditional posterior spinal instrumentation of a pedicle screw-rod construct. Surgeons that are relatively new to the ISP technologies for spinal instrumentation would likely benefit from more clinical and surgical evidence of safety and efficacy in published peer-reviewed medical literature. Further clinical trials are needed to manifest the efficacy of ISPs regarding postoperative outcomes when compared to traditional posterior instrumentation techniques (pedicle screw-rod construct) with adjunct interbody fusions." @default.
• W3138587658 created "2021-03-29" @default.
• W3138587658 creator A5017085193 @default.
• W3138587658 creator A5054555587 @default.
• W3138587658 creator A5071719809 @default.
• W3138587658 creator A5086137789 @default.
• W3138587658 date "2021-03-14" @default.
• W3138587658 modified "2023-10-05" @default.
• W3138587658 title "Interspinous Process (ISP) Devices in Comparison to the Use of Traditional Posterior Spinal Instrumentation" @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1494765198 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1496402519 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1561498079 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1965696195 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1981343532 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1984473734 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W1985063761 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2029624084 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2035487908 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2052050753 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2054279178 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2055946250 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2075174778 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2083374126 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2093473264 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2100028122 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2106394713 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2158505414 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2169955432 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2522209471 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2603423361 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2769333344 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W2805273131 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W4205837130 @default.
• W3138587658 cites W850076 @default.
• W3138587658 doi "https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13886" @default.
• W3138587658 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/8043769" @default.
• W3138587658 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33868850" @default.
• W3138587658 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3138587658 type Work @default.
• W3138587658 sameAs 3138587658 @default.
• W3138587658 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3138587658 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3138587658 hasAuthorship W3138587658A5017085193 @default.
• W3138587658 hasAuthorship W3138587658A5054555587 @default.
• W3138587658 hasAuthorship W3138587658A5071719809 @default.
• W3138587658 hasAuthorship W3138587658A5086137789 @default.
• W3138587658 hasBestOaLocation W31385876581 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C118530786 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C2777596629 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C2780375110 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C44575665 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C111919701 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C118530786 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C141071460 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C142724271 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C204787440 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C2777596629 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C2780375110 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C41008148 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C44575665 @default.
• W3138587658 hasConceptScore W3138587658C71924100 @default.
• W3138587658 hasLocation W31385876581 @default.
• W3138587658 hasLocation W31385876582 @default.
• W3138587658 hasOpenAccess W3138587658 @default.
• W3138587658 hasPrimaryLocation W31385876581 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W1971914550 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2222858905 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2360056953 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2386300209 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2529455929 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W2761135651 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W4249746253 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W4280651597 @default.
• W3138587658 hasRelatedWork W3104886528 @default.
• W3138587658 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3138587658 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3138587658 magId "3138587658" @default.
• W3138587658 workType "article" @default.