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.