ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2020
Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The morphology of the lumbar vertebrae: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 1481 individuals with implications for spine surgery.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Pooled it
- Full-Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Under Surgeon-Directed Local Anesthesia in Older Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Lumbar approaches and procedures for spinal stenosis (Neurocore-LAPS): an international survey of decompression strategies across disease extent.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Learning curve analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique in the treatment of the lumbar disc herniation combined with spinal stenosis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of RA FE-TLIF Compared to FE-TLIF in Patients With Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Establishment of a rabbit model for microscopically assisted posterior lumbar fenestration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Article
- A new surgery choice of bilateral laminoplasty for symptomatic three or more-level lumbar canal stenosis in patients over 60 years old: a two-year retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Patients' knowledge, attitude, and practice toward degenerative lumbar spine disease: A cross-sectional study in Shanxi, China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Pedicle Screw Fixation and Interspinous Devices in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Degenerative Spine Conditions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- INNOVATIVE FULL-ENDOSCOPIC DECOMPRESSION TECHNIQUE FOR LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: PROMISING EARLY RESULTS FROM VIETNAM.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- The 3-Steps Approach for Lumbar Stenosis with Anatomical Insights, Tailored for Young Spine Surgeons.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Acute disc herniation following surgical decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparison of mini-open and minimally invasive techniques.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Postoperative Evaluation of Pain and Disability in Patients Undergoing Spinal Discectomy.Cureus · 2023Article
- Delta large-channel technique versus microscopy-assisted laminar fenestration decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a one-year prospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- 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
- Hematomyelia after epidural anesthesia: a rare complication with putative multifactorial and occult etiology.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLumbar spine stenosis is a common disease with a prevalence progressively increasing due to the aging of the population. Despite many papers having been published over the last decades, there still remain many doubts regarding its natural history and appropriate treatment. To overcome these problems and reach some globally accepted recommendations, the World Federation of Neurosurgical Society Spine Committee organized a consensus conference on this topic. This paper describes recommendations about the efficacy of surgical decompression, the difference between surgical techniques, and complications of surgery.
methodsWorld Federation of Neurosurgical Society Spine Committee aimed to standardize clinical practice worldwide as much as possible and held a 2-round consensus conference on lumbar spinal stenosis. A team of expert spine surgeons reviewed literature regarding surgical treatment from over the last 10 years, and then drafted and voted on some statements based on the presented literature.
resultsTen statements were voted. The committee agreed on the effectiveness of surgical decompression in patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms or with neurologic deficits. There was no consensus on the best surgical technique and, in particular, about the equivalence of microscopic techniques and an open approach. Regarding complications, we agreed that the most frequent complications are incidental durotomy and general complications in the elderly.
conclusionsSurgical decompression represents the treatment of choice for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis with a low complication rate. However, which surgical technique is the best is still under debate. Further studies with standardized outcome measures are needed to understand the real complication rate and frequency of different unwanted events.
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.