ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Spine2022
Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Changes in pain, quality of life, sleep, and mental health after uncomplicated spinal neurosurgery in palestine: a prospective study of patient-reported outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone Versus Fusion for Predominant Back Pain.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025Article
- Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis.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 · 2024Article
- Surgical management of spinal pathologies in the octogenarian: a narrative review.GeroScience · 2024Review
- Predictors of Persistent Postoperative Numbness Following Lumbar Fusion in Patients Older Than 75 Years: A Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.Neurospine · 2024Article
- The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2024Article
- Improvement in predominant back pain following minimally invasive decompression for spinal stenosis.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2023Article
- Poor muscle health and low preoperative ODI are independent predictors for slower achievement of MCID after minimally invasive decompression.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients ≥ 80 years of age and compare them with those of younger age groups.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent primary unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) (any number of levels) and had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were included and divided into three groups by age: < 60 years, 60-79 years, and ≥ 80 years. The outcome measures were 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (visual analog scale [VAS] back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12] Physical Component Summary [PCS] and Mental Component Summary [MCS] scores, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]); 2) percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the time taken to do so; and 3) complications and reoperations. Two postoperative time points were defined: early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months).
resultsA total of 345 patients (< 60 years: n = 94; 60-79 years: n = 208; ≥ 80 years: n = 43) were included in this study. The groups had significantly different average BMIs (least in patients aged ≥ 80 years), age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Indices (greatest in the ≥ 80-year age group), and operative times (greatest in 60- to 79-year age group). There was no difference in sex, number of operated levels, and estimated blood loss between groups. Compared with the preoperative values, the < 60-year and 60- to 79-year age groups showed a significant improvement in most PROMs at both the early and late time points. In contrast, the ≥ 80-year age group only showed significant improvement in PROMs at the late time point. Although there were significant differences between the groups in the magnitude of improvement (least improvement in ≥ 80-year age group) at the early time point in VAS back and leg, ODI, and SF-12 MCS, no significant difference was seen at the late time point except in ODI (least improvement in ≥ 80-year group). The overall MCID achievement rate decreased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group at both the early (64% vs 51% vs 41% ) and late (72% vs 58% vs 52%) time points. The average time needed to achieve the MCID in pain and disability increased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group (2 vs 3 vs 4 months). There was no significant difference seen between the groups in terms of complications and reoperations except in immediate postoperative complications (5.3% vs 4.8% vs 14%).
conclusionsAlthough in this study minimally invasive decompression led to less and slower improvement in patients ≥ 80 years of age compared with their younger counterparts, there was significant improvement compared with the preoperative baseline.
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.