ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Metrics Development for Minimal Invasive Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Spondylolisthesis by an International Expert Panel.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Ten-step technique for navigated tubular transforaminal and extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Use of a High-Fidelity Training Simulator for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Increases Working Knowledge and Technical Skills Among Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Trainees.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for pathologies of lumbar spine: A nationwide cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective study.
objectivesTo develop, operationally define, and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterize a reference approach to the performance of a minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsA Metrics Group consisting of 3 experienced spine surgeons (2 neurosurgeons, 1 orthopedic surgeon), each with over 25 years of clinical practice, and an educational expert formed the Metrics Group that characterized a lumbar decompression surgery for spinal stenosis as a "reference" procedure. In a modified Delphi panel, 26 spine surgeons from 14 countries critiqued these metrics and their operational definitions before reaching consensus.
resultsPerformance metrics consisting of 6 phases with 42 steps, 21 errors, and 17 sentinel errors were identified that characterize the procedure. During the peer review, these were evaluated, modified, and agreed.
conclusionsSurgical procedures can be broken down into elemental tasks necessary for the safe and effective completion of a reference approach to a specified surgical procedure. Spinal experts from 16 countries reached consensus on performance metrics for the procedure. This metric-based characterization can be used in a training curriculum and also for assessment of training and performance in clinical practice.
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.