Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015
Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02006901 (Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression and Laminectomy for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis - An Observational Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Comparative Effectiveness of Microdecompression and Laminectomy for Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis - An Observational Study
Who cites it
77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 173 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lumbar decompression and lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Minimally invasive thoracoscopically-guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for mitral valve repair: the UK Mini Mitral multicentre RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Is the presence of foraminal stenosis associated with outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis patients treated with posterior microsurgical decompression.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of 3 Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Effect of Arthroplasty vs Fusion for Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Interspinous Fastener Provides Comparable Clinical Outcome and Fusion Rate to Pedicle Screws.Orthopaedic surgery · 2017Trial
- Interspinous process stabilization with Rocker via unilateral approach versus X-Stop via bilateral approach for lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Tubular vs. Open Laminectomy for Pure Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Markov State-Transition Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Impact of Percutaneous Endoscopic Decompression Versus Open Laminectomy on Postoperative Acute Urinary Retention: A Large-Scale Real-World Data Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing laminectomy and unilateral hemilaminectomy in spinal hemangioblastoma resection: A multicenter study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Article
- Midline-preserving vs. midline-removing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: national registry study based on the Finnish spine registry (FinSpine).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 · 2025Article
- Establishment of a rabbit model for microscopically assisted posterior lumbar fenestration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Tubular versus unilateral biportal endoscopy: MRI analysis after unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in 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 · 2025Article
- Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Medical Digital Twin: A Review on Technical Principles and Clinical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- New ipsilateral full endoscopic interlaminar approach for L5-S1 foraminal and extraforaminal decompression: technique description and initial case series.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the equivalence for clinical effectiveness between microdecompression and laminectomy in patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis.
designMulticentre observational study.
settingProspective data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.
participants885 patients with central stenosis of the lumbar spine who underwent surgery at 34 Norwegian orthopaedic or neurosurgical departments. Patients were treated from October 2006 to December 2011.
interventionsLaminectomy and microdecompression.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in Oswestry disability index score one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D), perioperative complications, and duration of surgical procedures and hospital stays. A blinded biostatistician performed predefined statistical analyses in unmatched and propensity matched cohorts.
resultsThe study was powered to detect a difference between the groups of eight points on the Oswestry disability index at one year. 721 patients (81%) completed the one year follow-up. Equivalence between microdecompression and laminectomy was shown for the Oswestry disability index (difference 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval -1.36 to 3.92, P<0.001 for equivalence). Equivalence was confirmed in the propensity matched cohort and full information regression analyses. No difference was found between groups in quality of life (EQ-5D) one year after surgery. The number of patients with complications was higher in the laminectomy group (15.0% v 9.8%, P=0.018), but after propensity matching for complications the groups did not differ (P=0.23). The duration of surgery for single level decompression was shorter in the microdecompression group (difference 11.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval 4.9 to 17.5, P<0.001), but after propensity matching the groups did not differ (P=0.15). Patients in the microdecompression group had shorter hospital stays, both for single level decompression (difference 1.5 days, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.6, P<0.001) and two level decompression (0.8 days, 1.0 to 2.2, P=0.003).
conclusionAt one year the effectiveness of microdecompression is equivalent to laminectomy in the surgical treatment of central stenosis of the lumbar spine. Favourable outcomes were observed at one year in both treatment groups.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02006901.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.