ArticleCureus2026
Spinous Process-Splitting Laminectomy Versus Conventional Laminectomy: A Short-Term Outcome Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSymptomatic lumbar spine stenosis (LSS) is a common spine degenerative disease often associated with back pain and neurogenic claudication pain. Laminectomy is a widely performed procedure in treating LSS, but it can lead to approach-related morbidity due to iatrogenic paraspinal muscle injury. Spinous process-splitting laminectomy (SPSL) is a muscle-preserving laminectomy technique that has been reported to provide superior functional outcomes and less postoperative pain.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study evaluated the conventional laminectomy (CL) and SPSL techniques regarding operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain, disability indices, and time to return to daily activities.
resultsA total of 27 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 62.5 ± 7.8 years, with 13 patients in the CL group and 14 patients in the SPSL group. The average intraoperative blood loss was less in the SPSL group (123.21 ± 54.12 ml) compared to the CL group (188.46 ± 79.46 ml). The mean operative time was 67.86 ± 33.27 min in the SPSL group and 87.69 ± 32.44 min in the CL group. The mean immediate postoperative low back pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at day one was 2.8 ± 0.6 for the CL group and 2.0 ± 0.0 for the SPSL group (p-value = 0.001). At six months, the mean postoperative low back pain on VAS was 0.77 ± 0.44 for the CL group and 0.21 ± 0.43 for the SPSL group (p-value = 0.012). The average Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at six months postoperatively was 2.21 ± 0.43 for the SPSL group and 4.38 ± 4.73 for the CL group (p-value = 0.001). The average time to return to normal activities of daily living was 2.07 ± 0.27 days in the SPSL group, much less than 6.77 ± 4.6 days in the CL group (p-value < 0.01).
conclusionSPSL represents a minimally invasive alternative to CL, with significant reductions in operative time and intraoperative blood loss. It also results in less postoperative pain and better functional outcomes, enabling an earlier return to daily activities.
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.