ReviewDer Orthopade2019
[Minimally invasive decompression techniques for spinal cord stenosis].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recovery outcomes for military personnel undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis induced by physical overload: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Analysis of the efficacy and postoperative complications of thoracoscopic resection through the transthoracic posterior approach of thoracic paravertebral dumbbell-shaped schwannoma.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Comparison of the short-term effects of lumbar endoscopic and microscopic tubular unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Decompression Using Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Associated with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spinal canal stenosis is frequently found among elderly patients and significantly limits their quality of life. Non-surgical therapy is an initial treatment option; however, it does not eliminate the underlying pathology. Surgical decompression of the spinal canal has now become the treatment of choice.
objectiveMinimalization of surgical approach strategies with maintaining sufficient decompression of the spinal canal and avoiding disadvantages of macrosurgical techniques, monolateral paravertebral approach with bilateral intraspinal decompression, specific surgical techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsMinimally invasive decompression techniques using a microscope or an endoscope are presented and different surgical strategies depending on both the extent (mono-, bi-, and multisegmental) and the location of the stenosis (intraspinal central, lateral recess, foraminal) are described.
resultsMinimally invasive microscopic or endoscopic decompression procedures enable sufficient widening of the spinal canal. Disadvantages of macrosurgical procedures (e. g., postoperative instability) can be avoided. The complication spectrum overlaps partially with that of macrosurgical interventions, albeit with significantly less marked severity. Subjective patient outcome is clearly improved.
conclusionsReferring to modern minimally invasive decompression procedures, surgery of lumbar spinal canal stenosis represents a rational and logical treatment alternative, since causal treatment of the pathology is only possible with surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31053867What 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.