Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31395104›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

Comparison of bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis regarding low back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life - A Randomized Controlled, Prospective Trial.

Sangbong Ko, Taebum Oh

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The importance of the posterior osteoligamentous complex of the lumbar spine: dogma changing biomechanical insights.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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Lower Back Pain Associated with Spinal Stenosis: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Wnt/Stem cells international · 2021
    Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sangbong KoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Daegu Catholic University, 33, Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42472, South Korea. bong@cu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3527-9251
Taebum OhDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Daegu Catholic University, 33, Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42472, South Korea.
Daegu Catholic University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional posterior open lumbar surgery is associated with considerable trauma to the paraspinal muscles. Severe damage to the paraspinal muscles could cause low back pain (LBP), resulting in poor functional outcomes. Thus, several studies have proposed numerous surgical techniques that can minimize damage to the paraspinal muscles, particularly unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression. The purpose of this study is to compare the degree of postoperative LBP, functional outcome, and quality of life of patients between bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy (BDUL; group U) and conventional laminectomy (CL; group C).

methodsOf 87 patients who underwent diagnostic and decompression surgery, 50 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were followed up for > 2 years were enrolled. The patients were asked to record their visual analog scale pain score after 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. BDUL was used for group U, whereas CL was used for group C. The patients were randomly divided based on one of the two techniques, and they were followed up for over 2 years. Functional outcomes were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and SF-36.

resultsOperation time was significantly shorter in group U than in group C (p = 0.003). At 6, 12, and 24 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of spine-related pain (all p > 0.05). Functional outcomes using ODI and RMDQ and quality of life using SF-36 were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05).

conclusionsRegarding single-level decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, group U had the advantages of shorter operation time than group C, but not in terms of back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansLaminectomyLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedNeurodegenerative DiseasesProspective StudiesSpinal StenosisTreatment OutcomeDecompressionLow back painLumbar spineSpinal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID31395104
PMCPMC6686452
OpenAlexW2967434794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.