Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32613190›Full record

ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2020

Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Salman Sharif, Yousuf Shaikh, Abdul Hafid Bajamal, Francesco Costa, Mehmet Zileli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Dural Sac Cross-sectional area change from preoperatively and up to 2 years after decompressive surgery for central lumbar spinal stenosis: investigation of operated levels, data from the NORDSTEN study.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 · 2024
    Trial
  5. Incidence and predictors of early and late reoperation after primary lumbar spine fusion: a 10-year retrospective cohort study of 1,356 patients.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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Laminectomy aloneWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Comparable long-term pain and disability outcomes following decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients with high-signal facet joints.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
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Salman SharifDepartment of Neurosurgery, Liaquat National Hospital & Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Yousuf ShaikhDepartment of Neurosurgery, Liaquat National Hospital & Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Abdul Hafid BajamalDepartment of Neurosurgery, Airlangga University, Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Francesco CostaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Mehmet ZileliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ege University Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
Liaquat National Hospital · PKAirlangga University · IDEge University · TRIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lumbar spine stenosis represents a complex degenerative pathology that has been a subject of significant dispute when it comes to fusion. A review of the literature from 2008 to 2019 was performed on the role of fusion in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using PubMed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Using the key words "lumbar spinal stenosis," "lumbar fusion," "lumbar decompression," and "lumbar pedicle screw fixation," the search revealed 490 papers. Of these, only Level 1 or Level 2 evidence papers were selected, leading to only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were analyzed. None of the good-quality studies (RCTs) performed so far have proven any clinical benefit of adding fusion to degenerative lumbar spine decompression. The effect of spinal instability on the outcome following decompression remains controversial. At present, no unanimous criteria exist among the RCTs to identify what constitutes true instability. Fusion for instability or stenosis alone remains controversial, and the results are unconvincing. At this point, the issue expands to not only lumbar degenerative diseases but spinal fractures and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. We thereby present the consensus of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Committee, which formulated the indications for lumbar spine fusion in degenerative lumbar stenosis.

Indexed as

DecompressionFusionLS, Linkert scaleLSS, Lumbar spinal stenosisLumbar instabilityLumbar spinal stenosisODI, Oswestry Disability IndexRCT, Randomized controlled trialSedsign, Sedimentation signSF-36, Short Form-36Spondylolisthesis

Identifiers

PMID32613190
PMCPMC7322802
OpenAlexW3012149148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.