ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Recovery outcomes for military personnel undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis induced by physical overload: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundServicemen are at high risk for musculoskeletal injuries, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), due to the physical demands of combat and training. LSS often leads to significant disability, impacting soldiers’ quality of life and operational readiness. Surgical intervention is frequently needed, but the optimal technique for military patients remains debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of different surgical approaches for treating LSS, unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD), open decompression, and decompression laminectomy with transpedicular stabilization, in wounded Ukrainian military personnel, focusing on pain relief, functional recovery, and rehabilitation timelines.
methodsSixty-four male servicemen (43 ± 4 years) with LSS were divided into three groups according to the surgery type: the servicemen with LSS were divided into three groups according to the surgery type: Group 1 (ULBD), Group 2 (open decompression), and Group 3 (decompression with transpedicular stabilization). Preoperative and postoperative assessments included pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale), quality of life and disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and functional recovery using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at one week, one month, and six months postsurgery.
resultsPostoperative outcomes revealed significant pain reduction across all groups. However, Group 3 patients exhibited slower recovery, with persistent moderate impairments in quality of life and mobility six months postsurgery. In contrast, Groups 1 and 2 demonstrated faster rehabilitation, with minimal impairments by six months. The time to return to duty was notably longer in Group 3 (80.8 ± 20.8 days) than in Group 1 (27.4 ± 15.3 days) and Group 2 (38.4 ± 16.6 days).
conclusionsULBD and open decompression techniques offer faster recovery and better functional outcomes for military personnel with LSS compared to decompression with transpedicular stabilization. These findings suggest that less invasive procedures may be more suitable for military patients requiring a swift return to duty.
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.