ReviewBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015
Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis - a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials.
Review in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Degenerative Lumbosacral Spinal Stenosis Alters Neurotrophin-3 and -4 Expression: Impact of Metabolic and Behavioral Factors.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Lifestyle and Clinical Predictors of Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Expression in Lumbosacral Stenosis-Related Ligamentum Flavum Degeneration.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Modulation of Neurturin Expression by Lumbosacral Spinal Stenosis, Lifestyle Factors, and Glycemic Dysregulation.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Changes in the Expression Profile of Growth-Associated Protein 43 in Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of differences in expression pattern of three isoforms of the transforming growth factor beta in patients with lumbosacral stenosis.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2024Article
- Global Trends and Hotspots of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Associated factors of patients with spinal stenosis who undergo reoperation after a posterior lumbar spinal fusion in a Hispanic-American population.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Article
- The 100 Most Cited Articles on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy using percutaneous endoscopy through interlaminar approach: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Revision after spinal stenosis 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 · 2020Review
- Editorial on "Lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison of surgical practice variation and clinical outcome in three national spine registries" by LønneJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2018Article
- 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 · 2017Article
- Predictors of Reoperation after Microdecompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Korean Journal of Spine · 2016Article
- Article
- Full endoscopic percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression and discectomy: An outcome and efficacy analysis on 606 lumbar stenosis patients.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Article
- Analysis of surgeries for Degenerative lumbarstenosis in elderly patients.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients. However, the surgical management of spinal stenosis is controversial. The aim of this review was to list aspects a surgeon considers when choosing a specific type of treatment.
methodsAppraisal of arguments reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews published or indexed in the Cochrane library studying surgical treatments in patients with spinal stenosis.
resultsEight out of nine RCTs listed arguments for the choice of their treatments under investigation. The argument for decompression alone was the high success rate, the argument against was a potential increase in vertebral instability. The argument for decompression and fusion without instrumentation was that it is a well-established technique with a high fusion success rate, the argument against it was that the indication for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear. The argument for decompression and fusion with instrumentation was an increased fusion rate compared to decompression and fusion without instrumentation, the argument against this was that the invasive procedure is associated with more complications.
conclusionsThe main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there is disagreement on how instability should be defined. In a first step it is important that researchers and clinicians agree on definitions for important key concepts such as instability and reoperations.
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.