Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36840820›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Naresh Kumar, Andrew Cherian Thomas, Meetrra Seyher Rajoo, Sean Junn Kit Lee, Laranya Kumar, Liang Shen, Pradnya Mohite, Kasia Chen Xi Chua

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Naresh KumarDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. dosksn@nus.edu.sg.ORCID 0000-0003-4538-5031
Andrew Cherian ThomasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Meetrra Seyher RajooDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Sean Junn Kit LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Laranya KumarRoyal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin, D02 YN77, Republic of Ireland.
Liang ShenClinical Research Centre, Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Block MD11, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Pradnya MohiteDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Kasia Chen Xi ChuaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Health System, Level 11 Tower Block, 1E, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
National University Health System · SGNational University of Singapore · SGRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess and compare 5-year outcomes following uninstrumented spinal decompression and decompression with interlaminar device (ILD). To determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. This is because comparative literature between the above two procedures is limited past the 2-year timeframe.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon across 116-patients who underwent spinal decompression with or without ILD insertion between 2007 and 2015. Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with ILD insertion. Patients who accepted ILD were placed in the D + ILD group (n = 61); while those opting for decompression alone were placed in the DA group (n = 55). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively using the ODI, Eq. 5d, VAS back and leg pain, and SF-36. Radiological indices were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively.

resultsBoth groups showed statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in all clinical outcome indicators at all timepoints as compared to their preoperative status. The D + ILD group achieved significant improvement in radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height in the immediate postoperative period that was maintained while the DA group did not.

conclusionOur study found that in the management of LSS, clinical outcomes between those patients undergoing decompression alone compared to decompression with ILD showed statistically significant improvement in VAS back pain and radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height at the 5-year mark. ILD does not predispose to increased reoperation rates.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionSpinal StenosisBack PainDecompression, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeInterlaminar deviceInterspinous deviceLumbar decompressionLumbar spinal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID36840820
OpenAlexW4321997037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.