ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Lumbar canal stenosis in "young" - How does it differ from that in "old" - An analysis of 116 surgically treated cases.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Research progress of spontaneous facet fusion after lumbar spine surgery].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- "Only fixation" in cases with failed decompression for lumbar canal stenosis - Analysis of outcome in 14 cases.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Lumbar canal "stenosis:" Instability is the issue and stabilization is the treatment.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Degenerative lumbosacral spondylolisthesis: Instability as the primary pathology and stabilization as definitive treatment. Experience with 28 cases treated by only fixation without any decompression.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Symptoms related to "degenerative" spine: Instability is the cause and natural neural protection is the motive.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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients treated for lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the differences in clinical management in those below (Group A) and those above (Group B) the age of 50 years. All patients were treated with the premise that instability is the nodal point of the pathogenesis of LCS and "only-stabilization" is the surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring the period June 2014 to June 2020, 116 cases were diagnosed to have LCS and surgically treated by the Goel modification of Camille's transarticular screw fixation technique.
resultsTwenty-four patients in Group A and six patients in Group B had a history of "significant" injury to the back at the onset of clinical symptoms. The indices suggested that the intensity of symptoms was relatively more severe in Group A than in Group B. Unilateral leg symptoms were more common in Group A (68%) than in Group B (31.8%). Neurological motor deficits were more common in Group A (28%) than in Group B (12%) patients. Spinal segments surgically treated in Group A ranged from 1 to 4 (average 2 levels) and in Group B it ranged from 2 to 5 (average 3 levels). During the follow-up period that ranged from 6 to 72 months (average 37 months), 100% of patients had varying degrees of relief from symptoms.
conclusionsLCS is confined to a lesser number of spinal segments in the Group A patients. The symptoms were radicular in nature and relatively severe in Group A than in Group B patients.
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.