ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Current understanding of tandem spinal stenosis: epidemiology, diagnosis, and surgical strategy.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early clinical outcomes of simultaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for tandem spinal stenosis: a single-center retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Efficacy of measuring lysophosphatidylcholine levels in human cerebrospinal fluid to differentiate myelopathy from cauda equina syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accuracy and Reliability of Physical Signs as a Diagnostic Tool for Cervical Cord Compression: A Cross-Sectional Study.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
- Article
- Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Cervical Spine Degeneration Reveal Frequent Cervicolumbar Tandem Spinal Stenosis in Mexico.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Evidence for a genetic contribution to the ossification of spinal ligaments in Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament and Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: A narrative review.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tandem spinal stenosis (TSS) is defined as the concomitant occurrence of stenosis in at least two or more distinct regions (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar) of the spine and may present with a constellation of signs and symptoms. It has four subtypes, including cervico-lumbar, cervico-thoracic, thoraco-lumbar, and cervico-thoraco-lumbar TSS. The prevalence of TSS varies depending on the different subtypes and cohorts. The main aetiologies of TSS are spinal degenerative changes and heterotopic ossification, and patients with developmental spinal stenosis, ligament ossification, and spinal stenosis at any region are at an increased risk of developing TSS. The diagnosis of TSS is challenging. The clinical presentation of TSS could be complex, concealed, or severe, and these features may be confusing to clinicians, resulting in an incomplete or delayed diagnosis. Additionally, a consolidated diagnostic criterion for TSS is urgently required to improve consistency across studies and form a basis for establishing treatment guidelines. The optimal treatment option for TSS is still under debate; areas of controversies include choice of the decompression range, choice between simultaneous or staged surgical patterns, and the order of the surgeries. The present study reviews publications on TSS, consolidates current awareness on prevalence, aetiologies, potential risk factors, diagnostic dilemmas and criteria, and surgical strategies based on TSS subtypes. This is the first review to include thoracic spinal stenosis as a candidate disorder in TSS and aims at providing the readers with a comprehensive overview of TSS.
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.