↓ Skip to main content

Outcome after Surgery of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison of Bilateral Laminotomy, Trumpet Laminectomy, and Conventional Laminectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Outcome after Surgery of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison of Bilateral Laminotomy, Trumpet Laminectomy, and Conventional Laminectomy
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaveh Haddadi, Hamid Reza Ganjeh Qazvini

Abstract

Laminectomy is the traditional operating method for the decompression of spinal canal stenosis. New partial decompression processes have been suggested in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. The benefit of a micro surgical approach is the chance of an extensive bilateral decompression of the spinal canal or foramen at one or numerous levels, through a minimal para-spinal muscular separation. To match the safety and the clinical consequences after a bilateral laminotomy, laminectomy and trumpet laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were randomized to one of three treatment groups. Prospective study. One hundred twenty consecutive patients with 227 levels of lumbar stenosis without significant herniated discs or instability were randomized to three treatment groups [bilateral laminotomy (Group 1), laminectomy (Group 2), and trumpet laminectomy (Group 3)]. Perioperative parameters and complications were documented. Symptoms and scores, such as a visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, and patient satisfaction, were assessed preoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Adequate decompression was achieved in all patients on the basis of surgeon satisfaction. The global complication rate was lowest in patients who had undertaken bilateral laminotomy (Group 1). The minimum follow-up of 12 months was achieved in 100% of patients. Matched with that experience in Group 1, but, with more remaining back and leg pain was found in Group 2, 3.85 ± 0.28 and 1.60 ± 0.44, respectively and 3.24 ± 0.22 and 2.44 ± 0.26 in Group 3, respectively compared with 1.84 ± 0.28 and 1.25 ± 0.12 (Group 1) at the 1-year follow-up assessment (p < 0.05). It was the same for the ODI scores, which reached 14 ± 8% (Group 1), 28 ± 12% (Group 2), and 26 ± 16 after 12 months of surgery (Group 3) (significant, p < 0.01 compared with preoperative scores). Patient satisfaction was higher in Group 1, with 7.5, 20, and 25% of patients displeased (in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.01). Bilateral Laminotomy is certified acceptable and harmless in decompression of lumbar stenosis, causing a highly significant decrease of symptoms and disability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 47%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,450,346
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#922
of 2,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,527
of 300,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,885 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.