ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Minimally Invasive vs. Open Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients with Diabetes - A Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- [Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted decompression strategy for lateral lumbar spinal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive and Navigation-Assisted Fracture Stabilization Following Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Awake Spinal Fusion Is Associated with Reduced Length of Stay, Opioid Use, and Time to Ambulation Compared to General Anesthesia: A Matched Cohort Study.World neurosurgery · 2023Article
- A systematic morphology study on the effect of high glucose on intervertebral disc endplate degeneration in mice.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort.
objectivesTo compare outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs open surgery (OPEN) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in patients with diabetes.
methodsPatients with diabetes who underwent spinal decompression alone or with fusion for LSS within the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) database were included. MIS vs OPEN outcomes were compared for 2 cohorts: (1) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression alone (N = 116; MIS n = 58 and OPEN n = 58), (2) patients with diabetes who underwent decompression with fusion (N = 108; MIS n = 54 and OPEN n = 54). Modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI) and back and leg pain were compared at baseline, 6-18 weeks, and 1-year post-operation. The number of patients meeting minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or minimum pain/disability at 1-year was compared.
resultsMIS approaches had less blood loss (decompression alone difference 100 mL,
conclusionsMIS approaches were associated with more favorable outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing decompression with fusion for LSS.
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.