Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39448401›Full record

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.

Erland Hermansen, Kari Indrekvam, Eric Franssen, Tor Åge Myklebust, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Christian Hellum, Kjersti Storheim, Ingrid Fjeldheim Bånerud, Eira Kathleen Ebbs, Jørn Aaen and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Erland HermansenHelse Møre Og Romsdal HF, Molde, Norway. erland.hermansen45@gmail.com.
Kari IndrekvamHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Eric FranssenStavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Tor Åge MyklebustHelse Møre Og Romsdal HF, Molde, Norway.
Ivar Magne AustevollHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Christian HellumOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kjersti StorheimOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ingrid Fjeldheim BånerudOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Eira Kathleen EbbsOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jørn AaenHelse Møre Og Romsdal HF, Molde, Norway.
Hasan BanitalebiAkershus University Hospital, Lillestrøm, Norway.
Jens Ivar BroxOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Clemens WeberStavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Tore SolbergUniversity Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Arild HjulstadLevanger Hospital, Levanger, Norway.
Helena BrisbySahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

Helse Midt-Norge 10174Helse Vest 912046
6 · The paper itself

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

Decompression, SurgicalLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal StenosisAgedAwards and PrizesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaminectomyMaleMiddle AgedOsteotomyTreatment OutcomeBilateral laminotomy (BL)Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)Posterior decompression techniquesRandomized Controlled Trial (RCT)Spinous process osteotomy (SPO)Unilateral laminotomy with crossover (UL)

Identifiers

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.