ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
A comparative analysis of the outcome of unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a single-center retrospective study 104 patients on postoperative pain and functional disability.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Is bilateral laminectomy and fusion superior to total laminectomy and fusion in two-level lumbar spinal stenosis?Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of unilateral laminotomy vs. conventional laminectomy for decompression in patients with single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: This retrospective study included 104 patients who underwent decompressive surgery for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at a single institution. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Radiologic outcomes were evaluated by measuring translational motion, disc height, and epidural cross-sectional area on imaging. Results: The average age of patients was 58.95 years (range: 40-79). Both groups showed comparable VAS scores for lamb pain and complication rates. However, the unilateral laminotomy group had significantly lower VAS scores for back pain and ODI scores within the group. Improvements in these scores were more pronounced in the unilateral laminotomy group compared to the conventional laminectomy group, reflecting within-group comparisons. The unilateral laminotomy group also experienced less intraoperative blood loss and shorter surgical time. Radiographically, there were no significant differences ( Conclusions: Both unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy provide effective pain relief and adequate decompression for spinal stenosis. Unilateral laminotomy offers the advantage of reduce blood loss, shorter operative time, and lower VAS scores for back pain. Radiographically, the two procedures produce similar outcomes in terms of translational motion and disc height, although the traditional laminectomy group exhibited a larger epidural cross-sectional area. Despite this, VAS scores for leg pain were comparable between the two groups. Further studies are needed to compare the effects of surgical techniques at different lumbar levels.
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.