ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Endoscopic decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired change scores.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesise patient-reported and reoperation outcomes after endoscopic decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, while accounting for paired measurements, linked reports, clinical importance and certainty.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, trial registries and supplementary sources were searched to 9 August 2026. Adult cohorts with lumbar stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, endoscopic decompression alone and at least 12 months' follow-up were eligible. Linked reports were clustered to avoid duplicate patients. Leg-pain visual analogue scale (VAS; 0-10) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; 0-100) were pooled as paired mean improvements using random-effects restricted maximum likelihood with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman inference. When change-score SDs were unavailable, a pre/post correlation of 0.60 was imputed and varied from 0.30 to 0.80. Reoperations were pooled with a binomial-normal generalized linear mixed model. ROBINS-I and GRADE were applied.
resultsNine independent cohorts (335 patients) informed at least one synthesis. Leg-pain VAS improved by 5.25 points (95% CI 4.57-5.93; I²=93.1%; τ²=0.69; 95% prediction interval 3.16-7.34; nine studies). ODI improved by 38.11 points (30.43-45.79; I²=98.6%; τ²=82.22; prediction interval 14.54-61.68; eight studies, 293 patients). Both prediction intervals exceeded reference MCIDs (1.6 VAS points; 12.8 ODI points), but between-study inconsistency was substantial. Eleven reoperations occurred among 335 patients; the pooled proportion was 3.3% (95% CI 1.5%-5.6%). All quantitative studies had serious overall risk of bias, and certainty was very low.
conclusionSubstantial improvement was observed after endoscopic decompression in selected patients with mostly stable, low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. Because evidence consisted predominantly of uncontrolled retrospective cohorts with marked heterogeneity, these data do not establish comparative effectiveness, equivalence to fusion or superiority of uniportal over biportal techniques. PROSPERO: CRD420251270278.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42696032What 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.