Lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: is a unilateral microsurgical approach sufficient for decompression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: For the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, less invasive procedures, which preserve maximal bony and ligamentous structures, have been recommended to reduce associated morbidity. The authors examined the outcome after decompression of spinal stenosis in the elderly by comparing 3 different surgical approaches. Their focus was whether a unilateral microsurgical decompression provided sufficient outcomes in the elderly population. METHODS: The authors investigated 108 elderly patients (age ≥ 60 years) with lumbar spinal stenosis (mean age 71 years [range 60-93 years]) who underwent surgery between 2004 and June 2006 at the authors' institution. Three different modes of decompression were analyzed in this study: a unilateral partial hemilaminectomy, a hemilaminectomy, and a laminectomy. The outcome was assessed 12 months postoperatively using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and the Hannover Functional Back Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: The authors performed a unilateral partial hemilaminectomy in 53 patients (49%). Patients who underwent unilateral partial hemilaminectomies achieved favorable results of at least 80% as assessed using the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale and Hannover Functional Back Pain Questionnaire. Hemilaminectomies were performed in 45 patients (41.7%), and laminectomies were performed in 10 patients (9.3%). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the various techniques regarding the postoperative results (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Laminectomies did not show any advantage when compared with unilateral transmedian approaches. A unilateral partial hemilaminectomy combined with a transmedian decompression sufficiently treated the stenosis. This method seemed advantageous in minimizing the procedure and associated morbidity in this elderly population. Further investigations with long-term results (> 5 years) are still necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".