ArticleHeliyon2024
The comparison study of laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation and laminectomy alone without fusion interbody in young patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- A comparative study of lumbar spine stabilization with 2-stage surgery and cement augmentation in osteoporosis patients: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Structural Empowerment and Nurses' Intention to Stay in the Profession: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Survey.Nursing open · 2026Article
- The Preoperative Level of Pain Predicts Chronic Pain in Patients Operated on for Degenerative Disc Disease-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors analysis and risk prediction model for failed back surgery syndrome: A prospective cohort study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Discectomy with spinal anesthesia in the third trimester of pregnancy: A case report and literature review.SAGE open medical case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are many reports about the risk factors for recurrence after laminectomy surgery. Some surgeons use unilateral and bilateral fusion to provide sufficient stability to the lumbar spine. However, its strength, safety, and effectiveness in young patients are not widely known. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare surgical methods of laminectomy with unilateral and bilateral fixation and laminectomy alone without interbody fusion in young patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: 90 patients eligible for lumbar spinal stenosis surgery were selected through convenience sampling and randomly divided into three groups: laminectomy without fixation (A), laminectomy with unilateral fixation (B), and bilateral fixation (C). Pain, functional disability, quality of life, recurrent disc, adjacent segment disease (ASD), and fusion rate were evaluated and compared among the three groups six months post-surgery. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. Results: Six months after surgery, the mean score of functional disability in the bilateral group was significantly higher than the other groups (12.92 (3.30) vs 5.52 (1.91) and 4.30 (1.84), P < 0.05). Also, the highest mean score of pain after surgery was observed in the bilateral group (4.33 (0.70) vs 1.81(0.68) and 1.63(0.56), P < 0.05). The mean score of quality of life in the unilateral group was significantly higher than the other groups (87.81 (5.67) vs 68.58 (3.08) and 56.07 (4.04), P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the groups (P > 0.05) regarding fusion, recurrent disc herniation, and adjacent segment disease. Conclusions: Unilateral fixation provides the same benefits as bilateral fixation but has the additional benefits of being less invasive and minimizing the disadvantages of other investigated techniques during and after surgery.
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.