ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Long-Term Prognosis of Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pain and safety outcomes of different anesthetic techniques in hypospadias surgery: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, and pain intensity among patients with cancer in Oman and Lebanon: a comparative cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Orodispersible lidocaine film in palatine nerve block: a randomized, controlled and blind clinical trial.Odontology · 2026Article
- Interlaminar versus sublaminar lumbar decompression: a retrospective study on patient satisfaction as measured by PROMIS outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 210 patients with LSS (122 surgical, 88 non-surgical) from three tertiary spine centers, with a minimum five-year follow-up. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain scores, and maintaining minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Secondary outcomes encompassed quality of life measures, walking capacity, and patient satisfaction. Prognostic factors were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: At baseline, the surgical group exhibited more severe symptoms (ODI: 47.5±12.9 vs 41.3±14.7, Conclusion: Surgical decompression provides superior early improvement in functional status and pain compared to non-surgical management, with benefits partially maintained beyond five years. However, outcome convergence over time suggests that both approaches can be effective for appropriately selected patients. Prognostic factors identified in this study may guide personalized treatment decisions for patients with LSS. This study suggests an association between surgical decompression and superior initial improvement. However, due to the non-randomized design, these findings must be interpreted with caution.
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.