ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
1-year results of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery in Finland: a national FinSpine register study.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a Candidate Endoscopic Spine Surgery Registry Framework: Lessons From Global Spine Registry Models.Neurospine · 2026Article
- Midline-preserving vs. midline-removing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: national registry study based on the Finnish spine registry (FinSpine).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 · 2025Article
- Editorial: Why the randomized controlled trial is still at the apex and the gold standard for evaluating new medical and surgical interventions.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Diagnostic reliability of the FinSpine nationwide spine surgery registry: Comparison between clinical registry diagnoses and blinded imaging assessments.Brain & spine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeWhile the rates of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery have increased continuously internationally, the role of fusion surgery in the treatment of LSS has been under debate. We aimed to assess the outcome of LSS surgery at 1 year postoperatively and to compare decompression surgery with or without fusion based on the Finnish national spine register FinSpine data.
methodsFinSpine data of surgically treated LSS from 2015 to 2022 was included. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and secondary ones were Visual Analogue Scale for leg and back pain. Predetermined minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for all outcome measures was used to assess the clinical significance of differences in outcomes. Propensity score matching was utilized to ensure that the treatment groups were comparable.
resultsThere were 8,647 LSS patients in the data, of whom 6,751 (77%) were the subject of decompression surgery. Over 90% of patients without spondylolisthesis received decompression alone. At 1-year follow-up, ODI was on average 20.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.3-21.9]) for the fusion group and 23.3 (CI 22.5-24.0) for the decompression group. Differences in ODI, VAS leg pain, or VAS back pain were below the MCID. The share of patients reaching ODI percentage change score ≥ 30% was 74% (CI 71-78) in the fusion group and 66% (CI 63-68) in the decompression group.
conclusionMost of the LSS patients experienced significant improvement after LSS surgery. We found no clinical differences between decompression surgery with and without fusion.
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.