ArticleAnnals of African medicine2026
A Prospective Comparative Study of Instrumented versus Noninstrumented Decompression in Lumbar Canal Stenosis.
Article in Annals of African medicine, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundLumbar canal stenosis (LCS) results in neurogenic claudication and functional impairment. Surgical decompression is advised when conservative treatment fails; however, the benefits of including instrumentation are still under debate. AIMS AND
objectivesTo prospectively compare clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of instrumented versus non instrumented decompression in patients with LCS. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary care facility from August 2023 to February 2025, involving 59 patients with MRI verified LCS. Patients were grouped into instrumented (n = 25) and non instrumented (n = 25) decompression, with 9 patients lost to follow up. Clinical outcomes included Visual Analog Scale, neurogenic claudication, and Medical Research Council grading. Functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index, Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. MRI evaluated cross sectional area, antero-posterior diameter, foraminal size, and lateral recess height. Spinal stability was assessed by dynamic X rays using White and Panjabi criteria. Operational times, hospital stays, and blood loss were documented. Follow-ups were conducted at 3 and 6 months.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvement (P < 0.01). The instrumented group showed superior pain relief, motor recovery, and functional improvement, along with better spinal stability, despite longer surgery and higher blood loss.
conclusionInstrumented decompression offers better clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes in selected LCS cases, with trade offs of increased operative time and blood loss.
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.