SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparative effects of different posterior decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ISSLS Prize in Clinical Science 2025: A randomized trial on three different minimally invasive decompression techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis. Five years follow-up from the NORDSTEN-SST.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 · 2025Trial
- Integrative genomic analysis identifies key target genes and candidate drugs for spinal stenosis.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Article
- Comparison of treatment outcomes and analysis of factors interfering with efficacy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing unilateral unichannel and bichannel endoscopic ULBD surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designA systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of different posterior decompression techniques for LSS. Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is one of the most common degenerative spinal diseases that result in claudication, back and leg pain, and disability. Currently, posterior decompression techniques are widely used as an effective treatment for LSS.
methodsAn electronic literature search was performed using the EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was constructed to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order.
resultsIn all, 14 eligible studies comprising 1,260 patients with LSS were included. Five interventions were identified, namely, spinal processes osteotomy (SPO), conventional laminotomy/laminectomy (CL), unilateral laminotomy/laminectomy (UL), bilateral laminotomy/ laminectomy (BL), and spinous process-splitting laminotomy/laminectomy (SPSL). Among these, SPO was the most promising surgical option for decreasing back and leg pain and for lowering the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). SSPL had the shortest operation time, while SPSL was associated with maximum blood loss. SPO and UL were superior to other posterior decompression techniques concerning lesser blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay, respectively. Patients who underwent BL had the lowest postoperative complication rates.
conclusionOverall, SPO was found to be a good surgical choice for patients with LSS.
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.