ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparison of posterior decompression techniques and conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effects of different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Interlaminar versus sublaminar lumbar decompression: a retrospective study on patient satisfaction as measured by PROMIS outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Establishment of a rabbit model for microscopically assisted posterior lumbar fenestration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Nonlaminotomy bilateral decompression: a novel approach in biportal endoscopic spine surgery for spinal stenosis.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Total joint replacement of the lumbar spine: report of the first two cases with 16 years of follow-up.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Are We Finally Ready for Total Joint Replacement of the Spine? An Extension of Charnley's Vision.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of posterior decompression techniques with conventional laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no language limitations from inception to January 13, 2022. The main outcomes were functional disability, perceived recovery, leg and back pain, complications. A random effects model was used to pooled data. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report results. The study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022302218). Results: 14 trials including 1,106 participants were included in the final analysis. Bilateral laminotomy was significantly more efficacious in improve functionality than laminectomy [MD: -2.94; (95% CI, -4.12 to -1.76)]. Low incidence of iatrogenic instability due to bilateral laminectomy compared with laminectomy [RR: 0.11; (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.59)]. In addition, between those who received bilateral laminotomy and those undergoing laminectomy, the result showed significant difference regarding recovery [RR: 1.31; (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.67)]. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that bilateral laminotomy has advantages in functional recovery, postoperative stability, and postoperative rehabilitation outcomes. Further research is needed to determine whether posterior techniques provide a safe and effective option for conventional laminectomy.
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.