ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Is bilateral laminectomy and fusion superior to total laminectomy and fusion in two-level lumbar spinal stenosis?
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of bilateral laminectomy fusion (BLF) with total laminectomy and fusion (TLF) surgeries for patients with two-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: A total of 124 eligible patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated either with BLF or TLF between January 2023 and October 2025 at our hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups according to their operation methods (BLF group and TLF group). All data were collected from their medical records. Data on clinically related factors, such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score for low back pain, and MacNab criteria, and operation-related factors such as hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, and day to walk, as well as complications, were collected and compared. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of age, gender, pain side and operation level, preoperative VAS score, NDI, and JOA score between the two groups of patients ( Conclusions: BLF may provide better clinical outcomes than TLF in patients with LSS. Also, more studies are needed to further investigate the efficacy of BLF.
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.