ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022
Full Endoscopic Lumbar Stenosis Decompression: A Future Gold Standard in Managing Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Radiographic and clinical outcomes at 12 months following full endoscopic interlaminar decompression for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupuncture Stimulation on Postoperative Pain Control and Mobility in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Full Endoscopy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Efficacy of endoscopic decompression surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil recently, open decompression was considered the gold standard for the management of spinal stenosis, but the evolution of minimally invasive spine instruments has brought a new dimension to the management of spinal stenosis. Full endoscopic surgery has a lot of advantages in terms of minimal soft tissue damage, less bleeding, shorter hospital length of stay, and earlier return to work. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of full endoscopic lumbar decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis compared with classic open decompression surgery.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis without instability, consisting of 132 open decompression and 163 full endoscopic decompression patients. We evaluated the clinical result of the pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) of leg pain, back pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We observed the patients until 1 year after the operation.
resultsThe postoperative ODI scores and VAS scores for back pain and leg pain were better than the preoperative scores. The ODI scores and VAS scores for leg pain were significantly better in both groups
conclusionFull endoscopic decompression showed better early results compared with the conventional group, but a long-term study is still needed for further evaluation of the clinical results. The use of the full endoscopic technique is very promising in the management of spinal stenosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides a comparison of the efficacy of open decompression and full endoscopic decompression in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.