Europe PMC
open access
Five-year outcomes from a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive interspinous fixation versus open direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis
Background Interspinous fixation devices (IFDs) provide indirect decompression and stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and are potentially less invasive than open decompression, but long-term comparative data are limited. Objective To evaluate the long-term clinical efficac
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis; Comparison of Two Different Surgical Methods; Mini-invasive Decompression to X-stop#1125852
- Comparative Study of Sham Versus Mild® Procedure in Patients Diagnosed With Symptomatic Lumbar Central Canal Stenosis#849429
- Efficiency of Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis#967149
- Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Stabilimax NZ® Dynamic Spine Stabilization System#805164
- The MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous mild® procedure: 5-year results#235002
Record · ID 780637
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive