Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31997016›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020

Revision after spinal stenosis surgery.

J C Le Huec, S Seresti, S Bourret, T Cloche, J Monteiro, A Cirullo, P Roussouly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Recurrent spinal stenoses after implant removal: A case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

J C Le HuecPolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France. j-c.lehuec@u-bordeaux.fr.
S SerestiPolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
S BourretPolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
T ClochePolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
J MonteiroPolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
A CirulloPolyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Centre Vertebra, Bordeaux Univ, 15 Rue Boucher, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
P RoussoulyCentre Des Massues, Croix Rouge, 92 Rue Dr Ed Locard, 69005, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo make a literature review on spinal stenosis recurrence after a first surgery and edit rules to avoid this complication.

methodsWe conducted two separate PUBMED searches to evaluate the revision post-stenosis and degenerative scoliosis surgery using the terms: lumbar vertebrae/surgery, spinal stenosis, spine, scoliosis and reoperation. The resulting papers were categorized into three groups: (1) those that evaluated reoperation post-simple decompression; (2) those that evaluated spinal decompression and fusion for short (3 levels or less) or long (more than 3 levels) segment spinal fusion; and (3) those diagnosing the stenosis during the surgery.

results(1) We found 11 relevant papers that only looked at revision spine surgery post-laminectomy for spinal stenosis. (2) We found 20 papers looked at reoperation post-laminectomy and fusion amongst which there were two papers specifically comparing long-segment (> 3 level) and short-segment (3 or less levels) fusions. (3) In the unspecified group, we found only one article. Fifteen articles were excluded as they were not specifically looking at our objective criteria for revision surgery. In regard to revision post-adult deformity surgery, we found 18 relevant articles.

conclusionsAfter this literature review and analysis of post-operative stenosis, it seems important to provide some advice to avoid revision surgeries more or less induced by the surgery. It looks interesting when performing simple decompression without fusion in the lumbar spine to analyse the risk of instability induced by the decompression and facet resection but also by a global balance analysis. Regarding pre-operative stenosis in a previously operated area, different causes may be evocated, like screw or cage malpositionning but also insufficient decompression which is a common cause. Intraoperatively, the use of neuromonitoring and intraoperative CT scan with navigation are useful tool in complex cases to avoid persisting stenosis. Pre-op analysis and planning are key parameters to decrease post-op problems. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

ReoperationDecompression, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraeScoliosisSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisLumbar lordosisProximal junctional kyphosisRevision surgerySagittal balanceSpinal stenosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.