Trial reportWorld journal of orthopedics2025
One-year follow-up of conservative and surgical treatment results for patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis.
Trial report in World journal of orthopedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this aging population, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) reduces walking distance and impairs functionality. The definitive treatment is still controversial.
aimTo assess the efficacy of physical therapy and surgery in improving function and reducing pain levels in patients with LSS, both in the short and long term.
methodsThis prospective study screened patients aged 50-80 years with LSS and divided them into two groups based on certain criteria: Surgical and conservative. The conservative group received a supervised physical therapy and exercise program for 45 minutes, five days a week, for one month. The surgery group underwent micro endoscopic decompression surgery based on their LSS levels. Assessments, conducted before treatment and at one-month and one-year intervals, included the participants' walking distance, pain level using the visual analog scale, functionality using the Istanbul low back pain disability index (ILBDI) and Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSS) Scale, and activities of daily living level using the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living.
resultsThe study comprised 40 participants, equally divided into surgical and conservative treatment groups, with no significant demographic differences. After one year, both groups exhibited similar changes in walking distance and pain levels. However, the conservative group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in sub-parameters of functional activity and symptom severity of the SSS. After one year, the surgical group showed greater functionality, as assessed by ILBDI, and superior improvement in activities of daily living compared to the conservative group.
conclusionBoth treatments showed comparable efficacy in core outcomes (pain, walking distance). However, complementary advantages were observed: Conservative management demonstrated superior improvement in SSS functional subscales, while surgery yielded greater gains in daily living activities and low-back-pain-related disability.
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.