ArticleDer Orthopade2019
[Lumbar spinal stenosis : From the diagnosis to the correct treatment].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Inside Disc Out" Discectomy for the Treatment of Discogenic Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis under the Intervertebral Foramen Endoscope.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Hospital frailty risk score predicts adverse events in spine 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 · 2022Article
- Endoscopic modified total laminoplasty for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2022Article
- Outcome of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Multisegment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and the Effect on VAS Scores.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Gait analysis in the elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.International orthopaedics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of patients with the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is steadily increasing and simultaneously, the patients' expectations are also increasing. Nevertheless, evidence from studies for the appropriate treatment is still lacking. Treatment options mainly result from the practitioner 's experience and the clinical focus. The findings described in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often do not correlate with the patient's symptoms. Basically, the treatment should be started with a conservative treatment and preferably with a multimodal approach. Severe pain with extensive neurogenic claudication symptoms and unsuccessful conservative treatment should be treated surgically. Absolute indications for surgery, such as a conus-cauda syndrome are rare. The goal of all surgical procedures is to decompress the spinal canal without compromising the stability of the motion segment. Instability can also make an additional fusion necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30673805What 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.