SynthesisMedicine2020
Decompression with fusion versus decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decompression with interbody fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar diseases: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Elective Lumbar Decompression With Fusion Is Associated With Increased Mortality Compared With Decompression Alone: A National Propensity-Matched Analysis of Aging Cohorts.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Decompression Alone vs Decompression and Fusion: Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Full-Endoscopic Ventral Facetectomy vs Open Laminectomy for Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis: A Comparative Study and Brief Literature Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
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
objectiveThe goal of this study was to review relevant studies in order to determine the efficacy of decompression with fusion versus decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsUsing appropriate keywords, we identified relevant studies using PubMed, the Cochrane library, and Embase. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we used odds ratios, mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to assess and synthesize outcomes.
resultsWe found 13 studies that were consistent with this meta-analysis with a total of 29066 patients. Compared with decompression, decompression with fusion significantly increased the incidence of complications (RR: 1.41, 95%CI: 1.26-1.57), the length of hospital stay (WMD: 1.868, 95%CI: 1.394-2.343), operative time (WMD: 80.399, 95%CI: 44.397-116.401), estimated blood loss (WMD: 309.356, 95%CI: 98.008-520.704) and Zurich claudication questionnaire in symptom severity (WMD: 0.200, 95%CI: 0.006-0.394). The reoperation rate was lower in the decompression with fusion group than the decompression group but without significant difference (RR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.82-1.00). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in visual analog scale (leg pain and back pain), ODI, Short Form 36 Health Survey physical component summary, Short Form 36 Health Survey mental component summary, and Zurich claudication questionnaire physical function.
conclusionDecompression with fusion has no significant clinical advantages in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis when compared with decompression.
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.