ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Comparison between microendoscopic laminectomy and open posterior decompression surgery for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07489508 (Retrospective Comparison of Tubular Decompression With or Without Multisegmental Rhizotomy Versus Transfacetal TLIF for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Retrospective Comparison of Tubular Decompression With or Without Multisegmental Rhizotomy Versus Transfacetal TLIF for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 25-Year Observational Cohort Analysis
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- Clinical outcomes of navigation-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided UBE-ULBD in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of perioperative blood loss of three different posterior nonfusion decompression operations for single-segment lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Comparison between microendoscopic laminectomy and open posterior decompression surgery for two-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Retrospective Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Microscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Microscopic Bilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in the Early Postoperative Period in 142 Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- "Inside Disc Out" Discectomy for the Treatment of Discogenic Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis under the Intervertebral Foramen Endoscope.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroendoscopic laminectomy (MEL), in which a 16-mm tubular retractor with an internal scope is used, has shown excellent surgical results for patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. However, no reports have directly compared MEL with open laminectomy. This study aimed to elucidate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and perioperative complications in patients undergoing MEL versus open laminectomy.
methodsThis is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of prospectively registered patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery at one of the six high-volume spine centers between April 2017 and September 2018. A total of 258 patients who underwent single posterior lumbar decompression at L4/L5 were enrolled in the study. With regard to demographic data, we prospectively used chart sheets to evaluate the diagnosis, operative procedure, operation time, estimated blood loss, and complications. The follow-up period was 1-year. PROs included a numerical rating scale (NRS) for lower back pain and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction with the treatment.
resultsOf the 258 patients enrolled, 252 (97%) completed the 1-year follow-up. Of the 252, 130 underwent MEL (MEL group) and 122 underwent open decompression (open group). The MEL group required a significantly shorter operating time and sustained lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with the open group. The MEL group showed shorter length of postoperative hospitalization than the open group. The overall complication rate was similar (8.2% in the MEL group versus 7.7% in the open group), and the revision rate did not significantly differ. As for PROs, both preoperative and postoperative values did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the satisfaction rate was higher in the MEL group (74%) than in the open group (53%) (p = 0.02).
conclusionsMEL required a significantly shorter operating time and resulted in lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with laminectomy. Postoperative PROs and complication rates were not significantly different between the procedures, although MEL demonstrated a better satisfaction rate.
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.