Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39993833›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025

Evolving Role of Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review.

Sagar Telang, Sahil S Telang, Ryan Palmer, Andy Ton, William J Karakash, Jonathan Ragheb, Siddharth Patel, Jeffrey C Wang, Ram K Alluri, Raymond J Hah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sagar TelangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sahil S TelangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ryan PalmerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Andy TonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
William J KarakashDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA wkarakas@usc.edu.
Jonathan RaghebDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Siddharth PatelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jeffrey C WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ram K AlluriDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Raymond J HahDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional open lumbar decompression techniques have long been used to relieve spinal canal pressure caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. However, these procedures are associated with significant postoperative pain and prolonged recovery. Over the past few decades, there has been a shift toward minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques designed to minimize tissue trauma, postoperative pain, and recovery time. These advancements represent a major step forward, offering smaller incisions and direct visualization of the spinal canal. Despite the clear benefits of MIS and endoscopic techniques, they also present challenges such as a steep learning curve for surgeons and a risk of incomplete decompression. The present review examines the historical progression from open to MIS and endoscopic lumbar decompression techniques, assessing their clinical outcomes, benefits, and limitations. It highlights the ongoing need for careful application of these methods based on individual patient factors and emphasizes the importance of balancing innovative techniques with evidence-based practices to enhance patient care in spine surgery. The future of lumbar decompression will likely be shaped by further technological advancements, including navigation systems, robotic assistance, and augmented reality, which promise to improve surgical precision and outcomes.

Indexed as

endoscopic spine surgerylumbar decompressionminimally invasive surgeryspinal stenosissurgical techniques

Identifiers

PMID39993833
PMCPMC12053112

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.