ArticleCureus2025
Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Micro-endoscopic Laminotomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Analysis of Multiple Lumbar Spine Scoring Systems.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study is to examine how patient-reported satisfaction at one year after micro-endoscopic laminotomy (MEL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) aligns with conventional outcome measures and to assess whether these instruments adequately reflect patient perspectives. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing MEL for symptomatic LSS. Patients completed preoperative and one-year postoperative assessments, including visual analogue scales for pain and numbness, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), selected Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) items, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). Patient satisfaction was captured by a recommendation-level item at one year. Pre-post changes and associations with satisfaction were analyzed using standard parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate.
resultsOne-year satisfaction was positively associated with postoperative functioning in social and psychological domains and with walking ability and pain-related impairment, and it was inversely associated with residual lower back pain and disability. Numbness showed a weaker association with satisfaction. Although conventional scales documented clinical improvement, they accounted for only part of the variance in satisfaction.
conclusionConventional outcome scores capture important but incomplete aspects of recovery after MEL. Incorporating a brief, patient-reported satisfaction measure alongside established instruments can provide a more balanced appraisal of outcomes and support shared decision-making. Prospective studies are warranted to refine how satisfaction is integrated into routine evaluation.
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.