Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis - a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials

Existing Reviews

Please note, new claims can take a short while to show up.

No claims yet.

Annotation Summary

Term Occurence Count Dictionary
osteophyte 5 rheumatologydiseases
spinal stenosis 29 rheumatologydiseases
lumbar spinal stenosis 12 rheumatologydiseases

There are not enough annotations found in this document to create the proximity graph.

Review

Having read the paper, please pick a pair of statements from the paper to indicate that a drug and disease are related.

Select Drug Character Offset Drug Term Instance
Select Disease Character Offset Disease Term Instance
lumbar spinal stenosis 101 Title: BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersArguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis – a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trialsJakob M BurgstallerFrançois PorchetJohann
lumbar spinal stenosis 1692 complications.ConclusionsThe main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there
lumbar spinal stenosis 2223 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.BackgroundThe clinical entity lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients 65 years of age and older in the United States
lumbar spinal stenosis 5009 the returned reviews, only RCTs that investigated efficacy of surgical treatments for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were eligible for further analysis. Non-randomized trials and observational studies were excluded. In
lumbar spinal stenosis 5360 information.Eligibility criteriaIncluded were all RCTs that studied efficacy of surgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis , No limits for the study setting or language of the publication were applied. Excluded were RCTs that
lumbar spinal stenosis 7790 effectiveness and morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis .The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression.
lumbar spinal stenosis 9419 versus conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive
lumbar spinal stenosis 11102 was published in 2013 [[8]]. Six systematic reviews addressed the efficacy of surgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (Table 2). The characteristics of the RCTs included in the current appraisal and the surgical procedures
lumbar spinal stenosis 18523 findingsIn this review of arguments for or against choosing a specific type of treatment for a patient with lumbar spinal stenosis nine randomized trials (RCTs) were appraised. The main argument for decompression surgery only was a
lumbar spinal stenosis 20015 literatureThe main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. Increased vertebral
lumbar spinal stenosis 26357 important clinical questions impedes clinicians from an evidence-based treatment algorithm in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis . Indications for conservative or surgical intervention are oftentimes based on clinical judgment of
lumbar spinal stenosis 26745 choices.ConclusionThe main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there
osteophyte 13517 progression after decompression alone + continuous motion of the stenotic segments may produce osteophyte s as well as compression of the nerve roots[[12],[15],[16]],Satisfactory results with decompressive laminectomy
osteophyte 14244 spondylolisthesis have been excellent.[[13]]it has been suggested that degenerative changes, such as osteophyte s, decreased disc height, and calcified ligaments, increase the stability of the spine, thereby decreasing
osteophyte 16359 the continuous motion of the stenotic segments might compress the nerve roots as well as “produce osteophyte s” (n = 1) [[12]].Decompression and fusionMost authors argued for posterolateral fusion because
osteophyte 16968 leave the relative stability of the spine undisturbed (n = 1) [[12]], that degenerative changes ( osteophyte s, decreased disc height, calcified ligaments) increase the stability of the spine and thereby decreasing
osteophyte 19529 for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear (one RCT). In particular, degenerative changes ( osteophyte s, decreased disc height, calcified ligaments) increase the stability of the spine and thereby reduce
spinal stenosis 108 BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersArguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis – a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trialsJakob M BurgstallerFrançois PorchetJohann
spinal stenosis 376 4/2015Publication date (pmc-release): 4/2015Publication date (collection): /2015AbstractBackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients. However, the surgical management of
spinal stenosis 494 the most common reason for spinal surgery in elderly patients. However, the surgical management of spinal stenosis is controversial. The aim of this review was to list aspects a surgeon considers when choosing a specific
spinal stenosis 834 reviews published or indexed in the Cochrane library studying surgical treatments in patients with spinal stenosis .ResultsEight out of nine RCTs listed arguments for the choice of their treatments under investigation.
spinal stenosis 1294 technique with a high fusion success rate, the argument against it was that the indication for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear. The argument for decompression and fusion with instrumentation was an increased
spinal stenosis 1699 main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there
spinal stenosis 2230 supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.BackgroundThe clinical entity lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients 65 years of age and older in the United States
spinal stenosis 3079 It has been shown that symptoms often poorly correlate with imaging studies [[4]].The management of spinal stenosis is still controversial. For mild symptoms conservative treatment seems to be the natural choice although
spinal stenosis 3964 aspects and arguments influence the decision to choose the type of surgical treatment for a patient with spinal stenosis .Therefore, the aim of this systematic appraisal of arguments for or against a type of surgical treatment
spinal stenosis 4394 reviews published or indexed in the Cochrane library studying surgical treatments in patients with spinal stenosis . The Cochrane Collaboration Guideline has published guidelines for the standardized assessment of study
spinal stenosis 4850 recommendations of the PRISMA statement.Literature searchWe searched the Cochrane library for the term “ spinal stenosis ” in the title, abstract, or keywords. Of the returned reviews, only RCTs that investigated efficacy
spinal stenosis 5016 returned reviews, only RCTs that investigated efficacy of surgical treatments for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were eligible for further analysis. Non-randomized trials and observational studies were excluded. In
spinal stenosis 5367 information.Eligibility criteriaIncluded were all RCTs that studied efficacy of surgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis , No limits for the study setting or language of the publication were applied. Excluded were RCTs that
spinal stenosis 7797 morbidity of interspinous-device placement versus surgical decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis .The indirect treatment effect for disability and pain favors the interspinous device compared to decompression.
spinal stenosis 9426 conservative treatment on pain, disability, and loss of quality of life caused by symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).In patients with symptomatic LSS, the implantation of a specific type of device or decompressive
spinal stenosis 9795 explore the effectiveness of surgery vs conservative treatment, and conservative interventions for spinal stenosis .At present, there is no evidence that favours the effect of any conservative management for spinal stenosis.Moojen
spinal stenosis 9903 stenosis.At present, there is no evidence that favours the effect of any conservative management for spinal stenosis .Moojen [[33]]2011The main objective of this review was to perform a meta-analysis of all systematic
spinal stenosis 11109 published in 2013 [[8]]. Six systematic reviews addressed the efficacy of surgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis (Table 2). The characteristics of the RCTs included in the current appraisal and the surgical procedures
spinal stenosis 13192 instrumentation.Table 3Appraisal of arguments for and against a surgical techniqueDecompression alone for spinal stenosis FORAGAINSTArgumentReferenceArgumentReferenceBilateral and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression:
spinal stenosis 13797 degenerative spondylolisthesis have been excellent.[[13]]Decompression and fusion without instrumentation for spinal stenosis FORAGAINSTargumentReferenceArgumentReferenceSignificant improvement in clinical outcome[[9]]controversy
spinal stenosis 14534 graft noted high fusion rates[[10]]Indications for fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis have remained unclear[[11]]Noninstrumented posterolateral fusion has always been well-established and
spinal stenosis 14731 well-established and is done frequently[[10],[14]]Decompression and fusion with instrumentation for spinal stenosis FORAGAINSTArgumentReferenceArgumentReferenceImprove fusion rate + prevent spondylolisthesis progressionMay
spinal stenosis 17171 thereby decreasing the need for an arthrodesis (n = 1) [[12]], and that the indications for fusion in spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis have remained unclear (n = 1) [[11]].Decompression and
spinal stenosis 18530 review of arguments for or against choosing a specific type of treatment for a patient with lumbar spinal stenosis nine randomized trials (RCTs) were appraised. The main argument for decompression surgery only was a
spinal stenosis 19444 spondylolisthesis (three RCTs). The main argument against fusion was that the indication for fusion in spinal stenosis has remained unclear (one RCT). In particular, degenerative changes (osteophytes, decreased disc height,
spinal stenosis 20022 main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. Increased vertebral
spinal stenosis 25240 procedures and therefore limited discussion on arguments for or against specific techniques. While spinal stenosis is a prevalent disease in elderly patients and surgical interventions are performed on a regular base
spinal stenosis 26364 clinical questions impedes clinicians from an evidence-based treatment algorithm in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis . Indications for conservative or surgical intervention are oftentimes based on clinical judgment of
spinal stenosis 26752 main argument identified in this appraisal for and against decompression alone in patient with lumbar spinal stenosis was whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures. However, there

You must be authorized to submit a review.