Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
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.
Trial report 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The MOTION randomized controlled trial for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis using the percutaneous mild® procedure: 5-year results.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Agreement of CT versus MRI in reinvestigation of patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis. a comparison of surgically and non-surgically treated levels.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 · 2026Article
- Agreement of CT versus MRI in reinvestigation of patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis. a comparison of surgically and non-surgically treated levels.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 · 2026Article
- Agreement of CT versus MRI in reinvestigation of patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis. a comparison of surgically and non-surgically treated levels.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 · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes between microscope-assisted tubular unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy for crossover decompression in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A narrative review and scoring proposal for secondary lumbar instability after lumbar decompression surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe short-term clinical outcome for midline-preserving posterior decompression techniques was comparable. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical results after three different midline-preserving posterior decompression techniques. MATERIAL: In the NORDSTEN spinal stenosis trial (NORDSTEN-SST) 437 patients were randomized to three different midline-retaining posterior decompression techniques: Unilateral laminotomy with crossover (UL), bilateral laminotomy (BL) and spinous process osteotomy (SPO). Primary outcome was the mean change in Oswestry disability index (ODI) score at five-years follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients classified as success, mean change in EQ-5D, ZCQ-score, NRS-score for leg and low back pain, a seven-point Global Perceived Effect (GPE) Scale and proportion of subsequential spinal surgery.
resultsThe number of patients that completed follow-up data after five years was 358 (82%): In the UL, BL and SPO group the numbers were 122, 119 and 117, respectively. Mean age at baseline was 66.7 (SD 8.2) years, mean BMI was 27.8 (SD 4.1), and 172/358 (48%) were female. In the UL group the mean change was -18.2 (95% CI -21.0 -5.4), in the BL group it was -19.0 (95% CI -21.9-16.1) and in the SPO it was -18.6 (95% CI -21.6-15.7) (p = 0.917). No significant differences in the secondary outcomes between the three surgical groups were found, also the subsequent spinal surgery rates were similar.
conclusionThere were no significant differences in patient reported outcomes and subsequent spinal surgery rates after the three different decompression techniques at five-year follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39448401What 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.