Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24840246›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2015

Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry.

Everard Munting, Christoph Röder, Rolf Sobottke, Daniel Dietrich, Emin Aghayev, Spine Tango Contributors

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Biomechanical changes of sheep cervical spine after unilateral hemilaminectomy and different degrees of facetectomy].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Reversibility of nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis patients after decompression surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
  17. Incidental durotomy in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcomes in the Spine Tango registry.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
  18. Predictors of improvement in quality of life and pain relief in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age: a study based on the Spine Tango registry.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
  19. Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
  20. A comparison between different outcome measures based on "meaningful important differences" in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Everard MuntingClinique Saint Pierre, Avenue Reine Fabiola 9, 1340, Ottignies, Belgium.
Christoph Röder
Rolf Sobottke
Daniel Dietrich
Emin Aghayev
Spine Tango Contributors
University of Bern · CHClinique Saint Pierre · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare patient outcomes and complication rates after different decompression techniques or instrumented fusion (IF) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

methodsThe multicentre study was based on Spine Tango data. Inclusion criteria were LSS with a posterior decompression and pre- and postoperative COMI assessment between 3 and 24 months. 1,176 cases were assigned to four groups: (1) laminotomy (n = 642), (2) hemilaminectomy (n = 196), (3) laminectomy (n = 230) and (4) laminectomy combined with an IF (n = 108). Clinical outcomes were achievement of minimum relevant change in COMI back and leg pain and COMI score (2.2 points), surgical and general complications, measures taken due to complications, and reintervention on the index level based on patient information. The inverse propensity score weighting method was used for adjustment.

resultsLaminotomy, hemilaminectomy and laminectomy were significantly less beneficial than laminectomy in combination with IF regarding leg pain (ORs with 95% CI 0.52, 0.34-0.81; 0.25, 0.15-0.41; 0.44, 0.27-0.72, respectively) and COMI score improvement (ORs with 95% CI 0.51, 0.33-0.81; 0.30, 0.18-0.51; 0.48, 0.29-0.79, respectively). However, the sole decompressions caused significantly fewer surgical (ORs with 95% CI 0.42, 0.26-0.69; 0.33, 0.17-0.63; 0.39, 0.21-0.71, respectively) and general complications (ORs with 95% CI 0.11, 0.04-0.29; 0.03, 0.003-0.41; 0.25, 0.09-0.71, respectively) than laminectomy in combination with IF. Accordingly, the likelihood of required measures was also significantly lower after laminotomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.46), hemilaminectomy (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.53) and after laminectomy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.68) in comparison with laminectomy with IF. The likelihood of a reintervention was not significantly different between the treatment groups. DISCUSSION: As already demonstrated in the literature, decompression in patients with LSS is a very effective treatment. Despite better patient outcomes after laminectomy in combination with IF, caution is advised due to higher rates of surgical and general complications and consequent required measures. Based on the current study, laminotomy or laminectomy, rather than hemilaminectomy, is recommendable for minimum relevant pain relief.

Indexed as

AdultAgedConstriction, PathologicDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRegistriesSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24840246
OpenAlexW1989780083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.