ArticleHSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery2025
Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone Versus Fusion for Predominant Back Pain.
Article in HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Although a few recent studies showed good outcomes in back pain-predominant patients following decompression alone, none of the studies had a comparative fusion group. Purpose: We sought to compare outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone versus fusion in patients with predominant back pain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression alone or fusion and had preoperative back pain > leg pain. Outcome measures were (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement, and (4) global rating change (GRC). As a subgroup analysis, MCID, PASS, and GRC rates were also compared between the decompression and fusion groups for patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain. Results: Of 510 patients included, there were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs in both groups at <6 and >6 months with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement. The fusion group showed significantly higher MCID achievement rates for Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back at <6 months (85% vs 70%) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at >6 months (67% vs 51%). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and feeling better after surgery based on response to GRC showed no difference between the groups. The subgroup analysis for decompression versus fusion in patients with preoperative back pain < leg pain showed no differences in MCID, PASS, or GRC rates. Conclusions: This retrospective cohort study found that in patients with predominant back pain, minimally invasive decompression alone had significantly less MCID achievement rates in VAS back at <6 months and ODI at >6 months. However, it did lead to an overall significant improvement in PROMs, similar PASS achievement rates, and similar responses on the GRC scale.
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.