Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262561›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 Society2017

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

Erland Hermansen, Ulla Kristina Romild, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Tore Solberg, Kjersti Storheim, Jens Ivar Brox, Christian Hellum, Kari Indrekvam

Abstract readComparative Study
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, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dural Sac Cross-sectional area change from preoperatively and up to 2 years after decompressive surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis: investigation of operated levels, data from the NORDSTEN study.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 · 2024
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Predicting clinical outcome and length of sick leave after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in Sweden: a multi-register evaluation.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 · 2019
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy.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 · 2018
    Article
  11. Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).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
  12. Review
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Erland HermansenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Ålesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway. Erland.hermansen@helse-bergen.no.
Ulla Kristina RomildDepartment of Research, Levanger Hospital, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust, Levanger, Norway.
Ivar Magne AustevollKysthospitalet in Hagevik, Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Tore SolbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Kjersti StorheimCommunication and Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Disorders (FORMI), Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jens Ivar BroxDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Christian HellumDepartment of Orthopedics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kari IndrekvamKysthospitalet in Hagevik, Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOÅlesund Hospital · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NOLevanger Hospital · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of spinal process osteotomy with two other midline-retaining methods, bilateral laminotomy and unilateral laminotomy with crossover, among patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

methodsThis cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients were operated on between 2009 and 2013 at 31 Norwegian hospitals. The patients completed questionnaires at admission for surgery, and after 3 and 12 months. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery and hospital stay, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain and leg pain, and EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. The patients were classified into one of three treatment groups according to the surgery they had received, and a propensity score was utilized to minimize bias. The three treatment groups were divided into subgroups based on Propensity Scores, and the statistical analyses were performed with and within the Propensity Score stratified subgroups.

results103 patients had spinal process osteotomy, 966 patients had bilateral laminotomy, and 462 patients had unilateral laminotomy with crossover. Baseline clinical scores were similar in the three groups. There were no differences in improvement after 3 and 12 months between treatment groups. At 12 months, mean ODI improvement was 15.2 (SD 16.7) after spinous process osteotomy, 16.9 (SD 17.0) after bilateral laminotomy, and 16.7 (SD 16.9) after unilateral laminotomy with crossover. There were no differences in the secondary clinical outcomes or complication rates. Mean duration of surgery was greatest for spinal process osteotomy (p < 0.05). Length of stay was 2.1 days (SD 2.1) in the bilateral laminotomy group, 3.5 (SD 2.4) days for unilateral laminotomy, and 6.9 days (SD 4.1) for spinous process osteotomy group (p < 0.05).

conclusionIn a propensity scored matched cohort, there were no differences in the clinical outcome 12 months after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis performed using the three different posterior decompression techniques. Bilateral laminotomy had shortest duration of surgery and shortest length of hospital stay. Surgical technique does not seem to affect clinical outcome after three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationPain MeasurementAdultAgedCohort StudiesComparative Effectiveness ResearchDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLaminectomyLength of StayLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedNorwayOperative TimeLaminotomyLumbar spinal stenosisPosterior decompressionSpinal process osteotomy

Identifiers

PMID27262561
OpenAlexW2409738422

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.