Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Spinal Stenosis

2 published articles · Updated continuously

Clinical Trial Landscape

Clinical Trials for Spinal Stenosis

11 trials tracked for Spinal Stenosis: 5 in phase 3 or 4 and 1 with published results. The most-cited published study has 369 citations.

11Trials tracked
5Phase 3 & 4
0Recruiting
1With published results
Phase distribution
Phase 4 5 Other / NA 6
  1. Phase 4 Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Trial (LESS Trial) Completed · 369 cited
  2. Phase 4 Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication Evaluation Study Completed
  3. Phase 4 Intraoperative Infusion of Precedex to Reduce Length of Stay After Lumbar Spine Fusion Completed
  4. Phase 4 Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication Treatment With APERIUS® Completed
  5. Phase 4 Efficacy of Pregabalin in Patients With Radicular Pain Completed
  6. N/A Retrospective Evaluation of Performance of Coflex® Interlaminer Technology Versus Decompression With or Without Fusion Completed
Show 5 more trials
  1. N/A Clinical Trial Comparing Decompression With and Without Coflex™ Interlaminar Technology Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Completed
  2. N/A Improving Spine Surgical Care With Real-Time Objective Patient Tracking Using the Apple Watch Completed
  3. N/A Assessment of nanOss Bioactive 3D in the Posterolateral Spine Completed
  4. N/A Post-Approval Clinical Trial Comparing the Long Term Safety and Effectiveness Coflex vs. Fusion to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Completed
  5. N/A Post-op Acetaminophen vs NSAID Use on Lumbar Spinal Fusion Outcomes Completed

Showing the 11 most-cited and recently-updated of 11 trials. Browse the full registry →

Trial data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. Counts describe the research landscape and are not a treatment recommendation. Informational only — not medical advice.

What the trials found For clinicians

Spinal Stenosis: what the trials found

Clinical management for spinal stenosis includes various interventions including epidural steroid injections 1. The Aperius™ PercLID™ System showed a mean percentage change from baseline in physical function at one year follow-up of -32.31% and -37.48% (p=0.172) using the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire 3. Additionally, the Aperius® Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer demonstrated a -29.7% mean change in symptom severity at 6 weeks compared to baseline 5, though this was followed by a 26.7% increase in symptom severity at 12 months 5.

Pharmacological and perioperative management trials showed mixed results regarding efficacy. Pregabalin use resulted in pain scores (NRS) of 6 vs 3 (p=0.279), global impression of change of 3.5 vs 3 (p=0.282), and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores of 41 vs 20 (p=0.139) at 3 weeks 4. Dexmedetomidine administration did not significantly impact the time required after surgery to reach fitness for hospital discharge (3.2 vs 3.2, p=0.36) 2.

Recent results — preliminary, needs further review

  • A study evaluating the correlation between objective patient measures from an Apple Watch/App and patient-reported outcome measures (SF-36, EQ-5D, PROMIS, NDI, ODI) found no statistically significant correlations (p=0.52394318) 6.

For the clinician treating this condition

  • Epidural steroid injections and the Aperius™ PercLID™ System are established interventions for spinal stenosis; however, the Aperius® Percutaneous Interspinous Spacer showed a significant increase in symptom severity between 6 weeks and 12 months [1, 3, 5].
  • Pharmacological interventions such as Pregabalin and Dexmedetomidine did not show statistically significant improvements in pain scores or recovery timelines in the studied cohorts [2, 4].

AI synthesis of 6 cited trials, updated Jun 25, 2026. Informational only — not medical advice; trial data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. How we use AI.

HCP Mode — summaries include clinical detail, trial data, and statistical outcomes.
Patient Mode — summaries use plain language, avoiding clinical jargon.