Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37990183›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression: systematic review of outcomes and complications.

Nizar Algarni, Mohamed Al-Amoodi, Yousef Marwan, Rakan Bokhari, Abdullah Addar, Abdullah Alshammari, Abdulrahman Alaseem, Waleed Albishi, Ibrahim Alshaygy, Fahad Alabdullatif

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07489508 (Retrospective Comparison of Tubular Decompression With or Without Multisegmental Rhizotomy Versus Transfacetal TLIF for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07489508 completednot on this map

Retrospective Comparison of Tubular Decompression With or Without Multisegmental Rhizotomy Versus Transfacetal TLIF for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 25-Year Observational Cohort Analysis

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity of ValenciaRan2000 to 2026Enrolled246ConditionsLumbar Spinal Stenosis, Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis, Neurogenic Claudication
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Laminectomy aloneWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Nizar AlgarniDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohamed Al-AmoodiDepartment of Orthopedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Yousef MarwanDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences Center, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Rakan BokhariDivision of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah AddarDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah AlshammariDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abdulrahman AlaseemDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Waleed AlbishiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim AlshaygyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahad AlabdullatifDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Fahad.s.alabdullatif@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression has gained popularity recently.

aimTo systematically review the literature of unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aiming to assess outcomes and complications of the different techniques described in literature.

methodsOn August 7, 2022, Pubmed and EMBASE were searched by 2 reviewers independently, and all the relevant studies published up to date were considered based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subject headings "unilateral laminotomy", "bilateral decompression" and their related key terms were used. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to screen the articles.

resultsA total of seven studies including 371 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 69.0 years (range: 55-83 years). The follow up duration ranged from 1 to 3 years. Rate of postoperative pain and functional improvement was favorable based on VAS, JOA, JOABPEQ, RMDW, ODI and SF-36, for example improved from a range of 4.2-7.5 preoperatively on the VAS score to a range of 1.4-3.0 postoperatively at the final follow up. Insufficient decompression was noted in 3% of the reported cases. The overall complication rate was reported at 18-20%, with dural tear at 3.6-9% and hematoma at 0-4%.

conclusionUnilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. This, however, needs to be further confirmed in larger, long-term follow-up, prospective, comparative studies between open, and minimally invasive techniques.

Indexed as

LaminectomySpinal StenosisAgedAged, 80 and overDecompression, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraeMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSpinal CanalTreatment OutcomeLaminotomySpinal decompressionSpinal stenosisSpine

Identifiers

PMID37990183
PMCPMC10662450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.