Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35881393›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Incidence of Revision Surgery After Decompression With vs Without Fusion Among Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Nils H Ulrich, Jakob M Burgstaller, Fabio Valeri, Giuseppe Pichierri, Michael Betz, Tamas F Fekete, Maria M Wertli, François Porchet, Johann Steurer, Mazda Farshad and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Radiographic phenotype-driven clustering in lumbar decompression: comparative study of outcome and reoperation risk.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Disc bulging predicts poor outcomes of decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis.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
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fusion versus decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis: a target trial emulation with index trial benchmarking.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
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Biomechanics after spinal decompression and posterior instrumentation.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 · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Lower Back Pain Associated with Spinal Stenosis: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nils H UlrichUniversity Spine Centre Zurich, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jakob M BurgstallerHorten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Fabio ValeriInstitute of Primary Care, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Giuseppe PichierriHorten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael BetzUniversity Spine Centre Zurich, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tamas F FeketeDepartment of Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, Spine Center, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.
Maria M WertliHorten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
François PorchetDepartment of Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, Spine Center, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland.
Johann SteurerHorten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mazda FarshadUniversity Spine Centre Zurich, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Only limited data derived from large prospective cohort studies exist on the incidence of revision surgery among patients who undergo operations for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Objective: To assess the cumulative incidence of revision surgery after 2 types of index operations-decompression alone or decompression with fusion-among patients with DLSS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study, the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study, which included patients aged 50 years or older with DLSS at 8 spine surgery and rheumatology units in Switzerland between December 2010 and December 2015. The follow-up period was 3 years. Data for this study were analyzed between October and November 2021. Exposures: All patients underwent either decompression surgery alone or decompression with fusion surgery for DLSS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of revision operations. Secondary outcomes included changes in the following patient-reported outcome measures: Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptom severity (higher scores indicate more pain) and physical function (higher scores indicate more disability) subscale scores and the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) summary index score (lower scores indicate worse quality of life). Results: A total of 328 patients (165 [50.3%] men; median age, 73.0 years [IQR, 66.0-78.0 years]) were included in the analysis. Of these, 256 (78.0%) underwent decompression alone and 72 (22.0%) underwent decompression with fusion. The cumulative incidence of revisions after 3 years of follow-up was 11.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-15.1%) for the decompression alone group and 13.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-21.5%) for the fusion group (log-rank P = .60). There was no significant difference in the need for revision between the 2 groups over time (unadjusted absolute risk difference, 2.6% [95% CI, -6.3% to 11.4%]; adjusted absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% CI, -5.2% to 17.0%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.63-3.13]). The number of revisions was significantly associated with higher SSM symptom severity scores (β, 0.171; 95% CI, 0.047-0.295; P = .007) and lower EQ-5D-3L summary index scores (β, -0.061; 95% CI, -0.105 to -0.017; P = .007) but not with higher SSM physical function scores (β, 0.068; 95% CI, -0.036 to 0.172; P = .20). The type of index operation was not significantly associated with the corresponding outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study showed no significant association between the type of index operation for DLSS-decompression alone or fusion-and the need for revision surgery or the outcomes of pain, disability, and quality of life among patients after 3 years. Number of revision operations was associated with more pain and worse quality of life.

Indexed as

Spinal StenosisAgedCohort StudiesDecompression, SurgicalFemaleHumansIncidenceLumbar VertebraeMalePainProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReoperationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35881393
PMCPMC9327572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.