Trial reportRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2018
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE.
Trial report in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02093520 (MILD® Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression Versus Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Exhibiting Neurogenic Claudication), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 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.
MILD® Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression Versus Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Exhibiting Neurogenic Claudication
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2020Pooled it
- The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Trial
- Artificial Intelligence Algorithm-Based Lumbar and Spinal MRI for Evaluation of Efficacy of Chinkuei Shin Chewan Decoction on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Trial
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- The MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous mild® procedure: 5-year results.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Disc bulging predicts poor outcomes of decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal 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
- Notable concerns in methodology and conclusions of the Wang et al. Meta-analysis in BMJ by the American Academy of Pain Medicine.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of Randomized and Prospective Trials.Journal of pain research · 2025Review
- Management of cerebrospinal fluid leak after a minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2024Review
- Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and outpatient laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a 2-year Medicare claims benchmark study.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Lumbar Epidural Hematoma as a Rare Complication From Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.Cureus · 2023Article
- Review
- Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Risk Factors for Failing to Reach a Minimal Clinically Important Difference Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Impact of Time to Complete PROMIS-PF Surveys on the Scores of Patients Undergoing Lumbar Decompression.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThis study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients.
methodsThis prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events.
resultsAll outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event.
conclusionsMILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.
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.