Observational studyMedicine2017
Muscle gap approach under a minimally invasive channel technique for treating long segmental lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Superior articular process cross-sectional area is a new sensitive parameter for the diagnosis of lumbar central canal spinal stenosis.Clinical interventions in aging · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of muscle gap approach under a minimally invasive channel surgical technique with the traditional median approach.In the Orthopedics Department of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital, Tongzhou District, Beijing, 68 cases of lumbar spinal canal stenosis underwent surgery using the muscle gap approach under a minimally invasive channel technique and a median approach between September 2013 and February 2016. Both approaches adopted lumbar spinal canal decompression, intervertebral disk removal, cage implantation, and pedicle screw fixation. The operation time, bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, and preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score and Japanese Orthopedics Association score (JOA) were compared between the 2 groups.All patients were followed up for more than 1 year. No significant difference between the 2 groups was found with respect to age, gender, surgical segments. No diversity was noted in the operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, preoperative and 1 month after the operation VAS score, preoperative and 1 month after the operation JOA score, and 6 months after the operation JOA score between 2 groups (P > .05). The amount of postoperative wound drainage (260.90 ± 160 mL vs 447.80 ± 183.60 mL, P < .001) and the VAS score 6 months after the operation (1.71 ± 0.64 vs 2.19 ± 0.87, P = .01) were significantly lower in the muscle gap approach group than in the median approach group (P < .05). In the muscle gap approach under a minimally invasive channel group, the average drainage volume was reduced by 187 mL, and the average VAS score 6 months after the operation was reduced by an average of 0.48.The muscle gap approach under a minimally invasive channel technique is a feasible method to treat long segmental lumbar spinal canal stenosis. It retains the integrity of the posterior spine complex to the greatest extent, so as to reduce the adjacent spinal segmental degeneration and soft tissue trauma. Satisfactory short-term and long-term clinical results were obtained.
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.