Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40634624›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

No long term benefit of decompression of a borderline lumbar spinal stenosis level adjacent to a more stenotic index level.

Erland Hermansen, Eric Franssen, Tor Åge Myklebust, Kari Indrekvam, Ivar Magne Austevoll, Christian Hellum, Sara Tronstad, Kjersti Storheim, Jørn Aaen, Hasan Banitalebi and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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. 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

14 authors.

Erland HermansenUnit for Research and Innovation, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway. erland.hermansen45@gmail.com.
Eric FranssenStavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Tor Åge MyklebustUnit for Research and Innovation, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.
Kari IndrekvamKysthospitalet in Hagevik. Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ivar Magne AustevollKysthospitalet in Hagevik. Orthopedic Clinic, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Christian HellumOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Sara TronstadOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kjersti StorheimOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jørn AaenÅlesund Hospital, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Ålesund, Norway.
Hasan BanitalebiAkershus University Hospital, Nordbyhagen, Norway.
Jens Ivar BroxOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Trond OttarMartina Hansen Hospital, Sandvika, Norway.
Tore K SolbergUniversity Hospital of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Helena BrisbySahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) frequently involves multiple levels of the spine. Whether to perform single-level decompression (SLD) or multi-level decompression (MLD) in patients with at least one borderline stenotic level adjacent to the primary (index) level, remains debated. Short-term follow-up studies show comparable outcomes for both strategies. This study aimed to assess five-year outcomes in patients with adjacent borderline stenosis. MATERIAL: All participants were recruited from the NORDSTEN-SST. Patients with a preoperative adjacent borderline stenosis, defined as Schizas grade B or C, in addition to the index level, were included in the study. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the type of surgical intervention: SLD or MLD. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were recorded for both groups, with follow-up conducted five years postoperatively. Subgroup analysis based on the Schizas grade in the adjacent level were also performed.

resultsOut of 437 patients in the NORDSTEN-SST, the 222 with borderline adjacent stenosis were included. Among these, 114 underwent SLD, while 108 underwent MLD. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Mean change in ODI-score was - 16.0 (95% CI -18.9-12.9) for the SLD group and - 18.6 (95% CI -22.1-15.1) for the MLD group, p = 0.26. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between groups in clinical outcomes or need for subsequent spinal surgeries.

conclusionIn this observational study, five-year clinical outcomes in patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis with a significant stenotic index level were not influenced by additional decompression of preoperative adjacent borderline stenotic levels.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalLumbar VertebraeSpinal StenosisAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAdjacent level decompressionLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)Observational studyPosterior decompression techniques

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.