Clinicians › Spine

Lumbar decompression

145 citationsUpdated Sep 2026

Overview¶

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is managed through operative or nonoperative strategies, with current practice recommendations largely based on expert opinion due to a lack of randomized trials and heterogeneous patient populations [7]. The 2016 EFORT Open Reviews literature review aims to provide evidence-based recommendations addressing key clinical questions in this field [2]. Short-term follow-up data indicate that operative management provides more effective relief than nonoperative treatment [1], and recent prospective randomized studies have demonstrated that surgery is superior to nonsurgical management for controlling pain and improving function [11]. However, prospective studies comparing the long-term natural history of lumbar spinal stenosis between nonoperative and operative interventions are still needed [1]. The Verbiest trial design evaluates the cost-effectiveness of surgical decompression versus prolonged conservative treatment to address insufficient data on relative benefit and safety [32].

Regarding surgical technique, decompression alone is supported as the preferred method for spinal stenosis, whether or not degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively [13]. Adding fusion to decompression did not improve outcomes at two years [3], and decompression alone demonstrates non-inferiority in efficacy for low back pain due to degenerative spondylolisthesis compared to fusion, with additional benefits in operation time and blood loss [15]. Five-year clinical results from a randomized trial further support decompression alone as the preferred method [50]. The NORDSTEN/DS trial has the potential to provide Level 1 evidence on whether decompression alone should be advocated as the preferred method [4]. Specific techniques show distinct profiles: unilateral laminotomy offers shorter operation time than conventional laminectomy for single-level decompression, though without advantage in back pain, functional outcome, or quality of life [40]. Biportal endoscopic discectomy is as effective as microscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation but has distinct advantages in postoperative wound complications [34]. ED utilization rates following endoscopic lumbar decompression are similar to those following open lumbar decompression [5]. Under strict adherence to surgical indications, posterior lateral lumbar fusion preserving partial facet joint unilaterally during neural decompression can offer greater benefits [74]. A prospective multicenter cohort study protocol is designed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression versus open decompression and fusion [42].

Patient selection is critical, as age is not a contraindication for decompressive lumbar spine surgery [47]. With proper patient selection, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion can be safe and effective for patients 80 years of age and older [18], and it is reasonable to operate on elderly and obese patients with lumbar symptoms when appropriate indications are met [35]. Lumbar arthrodesis is a viable treatment option for appropriately selected patients sixty-five years of age or older, demonstrating substantial benefit for those with degenerative disc disease treated with single-level decompression and instrumented arthrodesis [86]. Neuro decompression can be effective for patients with central sensitization, but it should be approached with caution owing to the potential for worsening low back pain [14]. Preoperative sagittal whole spine MRI studies are required to exclude proximal neurological compression [22]. A randomised controlled trial protocol aims to assess the impact of activity restrictions on clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy to provide an evidence base for postoperative care [23].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology¶

Bony and Ligamentous Anatomy¶

The lumbar vertebral bodies are large, with a transverse diameter exceeding the anterior-posterior diameter [104]. Lumbar pedicles arise from the superior aspect of the vertebral bodies and project more horizontally than thoracic pedicles [104]. While L1 pedicles are minimally medially angled, orientation becomes progressively more medial down the lumbar spine, particularly at L5 [104]. Lumbar spinous processes are thick and project straight dorsally [104]. The superior articular facet arises at the junction of the pedicle and lamina, with the articular surface facing dorsomedially [104]. The inferior facet extends down from the lamina and nestles snugly on the medial side of the superior facet [104]. This sagittal orientation allows flexion and extension while providing resistance to axial rotation and translation [104].

Each spinal segment consists of three joints: the intervertebral disk and two facet joints [46]. The central spinal canal is defined as the space posterior to the posterior longitudinal ligament, anterior to the ligamentum flavum and laminae, and bordered laterally by the medial border of the superior articular process [46]. The lateral recess, also known as “Lee’s entrance zone,” begins at the medial border of the superior articular process and extends to the medial border of the pedicle [100]. Its borders are the pedicle laterally, the superior articular facet dorsally, the posterior ligamentous complex to disc and floor of the canal, and the central canal medially [100]. Alternatively, the lateral recess is defined by the superior articular facet posteriorly, the thecal sac medially, the pedicle laterally, and the posterolateral vertebral body anteriorly [46].

“Lee’s midzone” describes the foraminal region, which lies ventral to the pars [100]. The borders of this region are the lateral recess medially, the posterior vertebral body and disc ventrally, the pars and intertransverse ligament dorsally, and the lateral border of the pedicle laterally [100]. The dorsal root ganglion and ventral motor root occupy 30% of the space in the foraminal region [100]. The exit zone is identified as the area lateral to the facet joint [100]. The intervertebral foramen is bordered superiorly and inferiorly by the adjacent level pedicles, posteriorly by the facet joint and lateral extensions of the ligamentum flavum, and anteriorly by the adjacent vertebral bodies and disk [46]. Normal foraminal height is 20 to 30 mm, and superior width is 8 to 10 mm [46].

The spine is organized into three columns. The anterior column consists of the anterior longitudinal ligament, anterior half of the vertebral body, and the anterior half of the disc [235]. The middle column includes the posterior longitudinal ligament with the posterior half of the vertebral body and disc [235]. The posterior column is composed of all structures posterior to the middle column back to the level of the supraspinous ligament [235].

Neural Elements¶

Within the dural sac and at the conus medullaris, the most cephalad nerve roots lie lateral and the most caudad lie centrally [101]. Motor roots are ventral to the sensory roots at all levels, with the arachnoid mater holding the nerve roots in their organized positions [101]. In the thoracic and lumbar spine, the named root exits below the named pedicle [101]. Discs are formally named for the vertebral bodies between which they lie [101]. Consequently, lateral recess pathology, such as lateral recess stenosis or posterolateral disc herniation, typically involves the next nerve root exiting caudal to that disc [101]. For example, an L4-5 posterolateral disc herniation is expected to cause L5 nerve root symptoms [101]. The dorsal root ganglion lies within the outer confines of the intervertebral foramen [101].

The sinuvertebral nerve originates from the ventral ramus and progresses medially over the posterior aspect of the disc and verte bodies, innervating these structures and the posterior longitudinal ligament [101]. The dorsal ramus courses dorsally, piercing the intertransverse ligament near the pars interarticularis [101]. The medial branch of the dorsal ramus innervates the facet joint at that level and the adjacent levels above and below [101]. Disc innervation is through afferent axons with cell bodies within the dorsal root ganglion [101].

Animal studies reveal two paths between the annulus and the dorsal root ganglion: one from the sinuvertebral nerve and another along the paravertebral sympathetic trunk [101]. The lateral annulus is innervated by fibers coursing from the index level and two additional superior levels through the sinuvertebral nerves in animal models [101]. It is also innervated through the sympathetic trunk by the dorsal root ganglion from three levels even more superior than the sinuvertebral innervations in animal models [101]. Contralateral dorsal root ganglion involvement occurs through both sinuvertebral and sympathetic pathways in animal models [101]. Nonsegmental, multilevel innervation patterns have been reported for the ventral disc surface [101]. Innervations of the disc from the vertebral endplate have been shown [101]. Intraosseous nerves follow the osseous vasculature for endplate innervation [101]. Endplate innervation is through the sinuvertebral nerve and the basivertebral nerve [101]. The density of innervation at the vertebral endplate is similar to that seen in the outer annulus [101].

Intervertebral Disc Structure¶

The human spine possesses 23 intervertebral disks that separate the vertebrae and provide flexibility [107]. These disks account for about 20% to 30% of the length of the spine and increase in size from the cervical to the lumbar regions [107]. The nucleus pulposus consists mainly of a high concentration of proteoglycans and water surrounded by a loose type II collagen network [107]. Collagen fibrils in the nucleus pulposus assume a random orientation and are interspersed in the matrix [107]. In contrast, the annulus fibrosus has a low proteoglycan and water content and a high concentration of type I collagens as well as a small concentration of type II collagens [107].

The annulus fibrosus is organized into concentric lamellae, possessing 20 to 25 lamellae rich in collagen fibrils arranged in a parallel fashion [107]. In each adjacent lamella, the collagen fibrils along the axis are fashioned in the opposite direction to create an alternating pattern [107]. The content of water and proteoglycan concentration within the disk increases when progressing from the annulus fibrosus to the nucleus pulposus [107]. Conversely, the content of collagen within the disk decreases from the outer annulus to the nucleus [107]. With increasing age, the proteoglycan and water content of the nucleus decrease [107]. The collagen content of the nucleus is highest in cervical disks and lowest in lumbar disks [107].

Pathophysiology of Degeneration and Stenosis¶

Lumbar spondylosis is due to a degenerative cascade associated with intervertebral disk degeneration [102]. Intervertebral disk degeneration is a complicated multifactorial process characterized by altered biomechanics of loading, an imbalance of extracellular matrix synthesis and degradation, increased secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, and increased apoptosis and senescence in nucleus pulposus cells [102]. Mechanical progression and associated disk space narrowing leads to adjacent level pedicle approximation with narrowing of the superior-inferior dimensions of the intervertebral foraminal canal [102]. Laxity of associated ligaments and vertebral column translates into altered loading mechanics and an altered pressure relationship on the vertebral bone and joint surfaces [102]. These altered mechanics are believed to influence both osteophyte formation and facet joint hypertrophy [102]. Altered biomechanics lead to further degenerative changes and osteophyte formation [102]. Degenerative changes and osteophyte formation have the potential to cause lumbar central and foraminal stenosis leading to symptomatic nerve compression and radiculopathy [102].

The degenerative process has been divided into three separate stages: dysfunction, instability, and stabilization [68]. The dysfunction stage is seen in individuals 15 to 45 years old and is characterized by circumferential and radial tears in the disc annulus and localized synovitis of the facet joints [68]. The instability stage is found in 35- to 70-year-old individuals and is characterized by internal disruption of the disc, progressive disc resorption, and degeneration of the facet joints with capsular laxity, subluxation, and joint erosion [68]. The stabilization stage is present in individuals older than 60 years and is characterized by the progressive development of hypertrophic bone around the disc and facet joints leading to segmental stiffening or frank ankylosis [68]. Each spinal segment degenerates at a different rate [68]. Disc herniation is considered a complication of disc degeneration in the dysfunction and instability stages [68]. Spinal stenosis from degenerative arthritis is a complication of bony overgrowth compromising neural tissue in the late instability and early stabilization stages [68]. The natural history of degenerative disc disease is one of recurrent episodes of pain followed by periods of significant or complete relief [68].

Lumbar spinal stenosis is the final stage of a cascade of events, with disk degeneration thought to be the initiating event [46]. As disk height decreases, the loading characteristics of the facets are altered [46]. Facet joint capsules become incompetent, leading to capsular, ligamentum flavum, and facet hypertrophy [46]. The ligamentum flavum becomes less pliable with age [46]. The final stage of the degenerative continuum is a decrease in the diameter of the spinal canal [46]. When the spine is in extension, the spinal canal diameter diminishes resulting in buckling of the shortened, hypertrophied ligamentum flavum [46]. In flexion, a relative increase in the spinal canal diameter is present [46]. The natural history of spinal stenosis is not well understood but is typically favorable, with approximately 15% deteriorating clinically and improvement occurring in 30% to 50% of patients [46]. Most authors support a multifactorial etiology of low back pain and leg pain associated with lumbar spinal stenosis, where mechanical compression, nutritive insufficiency, heredity, structural decompression, individual pain perception, and chemical insult all likely play a role [46].

Degeneration of the disc occurs with disc narrowing and subsequent ligamentous redundancy, which compromises the spinal canal area [100]. Instability may ensue from disc degeneration and ligamentous redundancy [100]. Relative hypermobility precipitates the formation of facet overgrowth and ligamentous hypertrophy [100]. The ligamentum flavum may be markedly thickened into the lateral recess where it attaches to the facet capsule, causing nerve root compression [100]. Central spinal stenosis denotes involvement of the area between the facet joints, which is occupied by the dura and its contents [100]. Stenosis in the central region is usually caused by protrusion of a disc, bulging anulus, osteophyte formation, or buckled or thickened ligamentum flavum [100]. Symptomatic central spinal stenosis results in neurogenic claudication with generalized leg pain [100]. Compression in the lateral canal region results in radiculopathy [100]. Facet arthritis most frequently causes stenosis in the lateral recess zone, along with vertebral body spurring and disc or anulus pathology [100]. Causes of stenosis in the foraminal region are pars fracture with proliferative fibrocartilage or a lateral disc herniation [100]. Thickening of the ligamentum flavum sometimes extends into the foramen and can be associated with a spur from the undersurface of the pars, especially if foraminal height is less than 15 mm and posterior intervertebral disc height is less than 4 mm [100]. The nerve root in the exit zone can be compressed by a “far lateral” disc, spondylolisthesis and associated subluxation, or facet arthritis [100].

The most common type of spinal stenosis is caused by degenerative arthritis of the spine, including Forestier disease [100]. Degenerative arthritis causing spinal stenosis is characterized by hyperostosis and spinal rigidity in elderly patients [100]. Acquired forms of spinal stenosis are usually degenerative, with the process most commonly localized to the facet joints and ligamentum flavum [100]. Abnormalities in facet joints and ligamentum flavum are frequently symmetric bilaterally [100]. The L4-5 level is the most commonly involved in acquired spinal stenosis, followed by L5-S1 and L3-4 [100]. Disc herniation and spondylolisthesis may exacerbate the narrowing of the spinal canal further [100]. Congenital spinal stenosis usually is central and is evident on imaging studies [100]. Idiopathic congenital narrowing usually involves the anteroposterior dimension of the canal due to short pedicles, with the posterior otherwise normal [100]. In achondroplasia, the canal is narrowed in the anteroposterior plane owing to shortened pedicles and in lateral diameter because of diminished interpedicular distance [100].

Degenerative spondylolisthesis is differentiated from isthmic spondylolisthesis by the presence of an intact pars [134]. In degenerative spondylolisthesis, the arch is intact and moves forward with the L4 vertebral body, resulting in progressive spinal stenosis in addition to facet degenerative changes [134]. The true deformity of degenerative spondylolisthesis is a rotary deformity that may distort the dura and its contents and exaggerate the appearance of spinal stenosis [134]. The sagittal facet theory suggests a predilection for slippage because of facet orientation that does not resist anterior translocation forces [134]. The disc degenerative theory proposes that the disc narrows first, and subsequent overloading of the facets results in accelerated arthritic changes, secondary remodeling, and anterolisthesis [134]. Facet arthritic changes seem to be more severe than disc space narrowing, with the most advanced anterolisthesis present when disc narrowing is more pronounced [134]. Facets that are aligned in a more sagittal orientation provide less stability at the involved level [134]. Sagittal facet angles of more than 45 degrees at L4-L5 predicted a 25 times greater likelihood of degenerative spondylolisthesis [134]. There seems to be no sex-specific difference in facet orientation, despite the increased frequency of degenerative spondylolisthesis in women [134]. Sagittal facet orientation has been correlated with disc space narrowing, suggesting that disc narrowing increases loading of the facet, resulting in secondary facet changes [134]. Instability causes facet arthritis, disc degeneration, and ligamentous hypertrophy, which all contribute to produce symptoms [134]. The sagittal orientation of the facets was part of the preexisting morphology and was not solely a secondary result of spondylolisthesis [166].

Genetic factors are more important than mechanical stresses in the development of disc herniations [53]. The development of a disc herniation is only one of the pathways that the degenerative disc may follow [53]. The disc may become the primary source of pain, rather than the nerve root, as is the case with herniations [53]. Discogenic type of pain is most attributable to the internal disc derangement that accompanies the degenerative process [53]. Nociceptive receptors and the innervation of the disc by the sinuvertebral nerves and basivertebral nerves contribute to the anatomic basis for discogenic pain [53]. Internal disc derangement is defined as a pathologic condition resulting in axial spine pain with no or minimal deformation of spinal alignment or disc contour [53]. It is distinguished from measurable instability, which can occur with fractures, traumatic ligamentous disruptions, degenerative listhesis, scoliosis, or other conditions [53]. There are no defined criteria for internal disc derangement [53]. The diagnosis of internal disc derangement requires a compilation of findings consistent with the

Classification¶

No clinically applicable and validated classification of spinal stenosis has been published, which has substantially limited the development of an evidence-based algorithm for treatment [135]. The classification of thoracic and lumbar spine injuries remains difficult because the goals of classification, anatomic structures to consider, and definitions have not been agreed upon by the community of spine surgeons [30]. Terminology relating to “stability” of the spine does not have a universally agreed upon definition, which introduces conflicting meanings in different classification schemes [30]. The concept of “instability” has progressed to include immediate instability and delayed instability [30].

Denis: The Denis classification is based on a three-column model of the spine and is an example of a mechanistic system that remains in widespread use [30].

AO: The AO system is based on fracture morphology with more severe injuries progressing from type A to type C with subtypes 1 to 3 within each type of injury [30]. The AO system subtypes are further subdivided into 53 possible patterns [30].

TLISS: The Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score (TLISS) system incorporates the neurologic examination of the patient in a more direct way than previous systems and uses this information with fracture morphology and the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex to derive a numeric score [30].

TLICS: The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) is a scoring system that assigns a numerical score to any given thoracolumbar injury based on fracture morphology, neurologic status, and integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex [179]. According to the TLICS, a fracture with a cumulative score of 3 or less is deemed stable and amenable to nonoperative treatment [179]. A score of 4 is indeterminate and should be left to the surgeon's discretion [179]. A score of 5 or more designates an unstable injury that should be treated operatively [179]. The TLICS has shortcomings including the inability to obtain a reliable neurologic examination in a significant percentage of multiply injured patients, rendering the scoring system unusable [179]. The TLICS fails to assist in decision-making for controversial injuries such as burst fractures with a question of posterior ligamentous complex injury, which invariably end up with an "indeterminate" score of 4 [179]. The TLICS was adapted primarily based on the "North American" approach to fracture treatment, which has prevented it from being accepted globally [179].

Revised AO Spine: The revised AO Spine thoracolumbar fracture classification stratifies injuries into one of three types in ascending order of instability: Type A (Compression injuries), Type B (Distraction injuries), and Type C (Translation injuries) [179]. Type A compression injuries include A0 (Minor, nonstructural fractures), A1 (Wedge compression), A2 (Split), A3 (Incomplete burst), and A4 (Complete burst) [179]. Type B distraction injuries include B1 (Transosseous tension band disruption / chance fracture), B2 (Posterior tension band disruption), and B3 (Hyperextension) [179]. Type C translation injuries are designated as C (Displacement / dislocation) [179].

Meyerding: The Meyerding classification divides spondylolisthesis slip into five grades: 0 to 25% is Grade I, 25 to 50% is Grade II, 50 to 75% is Grade III, 75 to 100% is Grade IV, and greater than 100% is Grade V [208].

Allen and Ferguson: The Allen and Ferguson classification of subaxial cervical spine fractures includes five stages of compressive flexion injury [67]. Compressive flexion stage 1 is defined as blunting of the anterosuperior vertebral margin to a rounded contour, with no evidence of failure of the posterior ligamentous complex [67]. Stage 2 includes obliquity of the anterior vertebral body with loss of some anterior height of the centrum and an anteroinferior vertebral body “beak” appearance [67]. Stage 3 includes a fracture line passing obliquely from the anterior surface of the vertebra through the centrum and extending through the inferior subchondral plate and a fracture of the beak [67]. Stage 4 is defined as deformation of the centrum and fracture of the beak with mild (<3 mm) displacement of the inferoposterior vertebral margin into the spinal canal [67]. Stage 5 is defined as bony injuries as in stage 3 but with more than 3 mm of displacement of the posterior portion of the vertebral body posteriorly into the spinal canal [67]. Vertical compression stage 1 is defined as fracture of the superior or inferior endplate with a “cupping” deformity where failure is central rather than anterior and posterior ligamentous failure is not evident [67].

Lee: The Lee classification is used to categorize prolapsed lumbar disc herniation types based on imaging data [184].

CARDS: The CARDS classification for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis includes subtypes A, B, C, and D [185].

French: The French classification for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis includes a type 5 subtype [185].

Other Considerations: A modified classification for migrated lumbar disc herniation has good reliability, and the experience level of spine surgeons does not affect this reliability [140]. A new classification system that incorporates spinopelvic balance in the radiographic assessment may aid orthopaedic surgeons in identifying patients who would benefit from partial reduction and fusion [171].

Clinical Presentation¶

History and Physical Examination¶

The history is crucial to the diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis because physical examination is often normal [172]. In the SPORT trial, only 50% of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis had physical examination findings including depressed reflexes, sensory or motor deficits, or positive nerve tension signs [172]. Orthopaedic surgeons must distinguish lumbar radiculopathy from a myriad of mimicking pathologies, including musculoskeletal, neurogenic, immunogenic, and iatrogenic conditions [151]. Vascular claudication, degenerative hip arthritis, and peripheral neuropathy are primary conditions that can mimic or overlap the signs and symptoms of degenerative spondylolisthesis and associated spinal stenosis [167]. Examination of the lower extremities is crucial to rule out alternative causes for pain, as lumbar spine pathology and lower extremity joint dysfunction, especially the hip, are common [172]. When history and physical examination findings are inconsistent with degenerative spondylolisthesis, hip range of motion and irritability, as well as peripheral pulses in the feet and proprioception, should be evaluated [167].

Patients with lumbar disc herniation typically present with varying degrees of back and leg pain [155]. Leg pain in lumbar disc herniation usually follows the dermatomal path of the affected root(s) [155]. Radicular pain in lumbar disc herniation may be described as lancinating and/or aching [12]. The presence of sciatica is the most sensitive and specific finding for lumbar disc herniation [155]. Other complaints in lumbar disc herniation can include numbness, tingling, and weakness, along with decreased sensation to light touch and pin prick [12]. Radicular pain in lumbar disc herniation may be accompanied by motor, sensory, and/or reflex disturbances [155]. Some patients with lumbar disc herniation complain of pseudoclaudication because herniation can result in canal stenosis relative to the size of the herniation [12]. Cauda equina syndrome secondary to large central lumbar disc herniations is rare [155].

The ideal candidate for minimally invasive spine surgery should have unilateral radicular pain radiating into the foot, with leg pain greater than back pain [12]. Predominant leg pain is associated with better surgical outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis [19, 21]. Neuro decompression can be effective for lumbar spinal stenosis surgical outcomes in patients with central sensitization, though it should be approached with caution owing to the potential for worsening low back pain [14]. Clinically significant improvement in leg numbness was observed in the majority of patients within 6 months after lumbar decompression surgery [165]. The improvement of leg numbness after lumbar decompression surgery was slower than the improvement of leg pain [165].

Diagnostic Imaging and Studies¶

AP and lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine, with consideration for dynamic radiographs, are important to evaluate alignment and evidence of instability in lumbar spinal stenosis [172]. Standing lateral, seated or standing flexion/extension laterals, and anteroposterior radiographs are imperative for operative planning because 15% of deformities spontaneously reduce on supine imaging such as an MRI [167]. Instability is considered to be present when 4 mm of translation or 10 degrees of sagittal rotation greater than the adjacent level is identified on radiographs [167]. A facet joint effusion more than 2 mm in width is highly suggestive of instability at that level and should prompt close inspection of the upright dynamic radiographs [167]. Snoddy et al. found a 42% probability of dynamic instability for each 1 mm of facet joint effusion [167].

MRI has become the benchmark for identifying spinal pathology in lumbar spinal stenosis [172]. Magnetic resonance imaging is the most effective radiologic test for visualizing disk pathology and achieving a definitive correlation with patient presentation [12]. T2-weighted sagittal and axial MRI images can demonstrate disk bulges, facet hypertrophy, ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, cysts, and other causes of stenosis [172]. Sagittal T1-weighted MRI images best show foraminal stenosis [172]. Radiographic findings of spinal stenosis increase with age, yet many patients never become symptomatic [172]. In a study of asymptomatic individuals, over 20% of patients older than 60 years had MRI evidence of lumbar spinal stenosis [172]. MRI with intravascular contrast material has been helpful in identifying recurrent disc herniations [31]. It is difficult to distinguish a peridural scar from a small recurrent herniation on MRI [31].

MRI generally is satisfactory for advanced neuroimaging, but a significant subset of patients cannot have an MRI because of the presence of a pacemaker or cardiac stents [167]. CT myelography can demonstrate compression in patients who cannot undergo MRI, although with less detail than MRI [172]. Lumbar myelography and post-myelogram high-resolution CT scans are satisfactory for patients who cannot undergo MRI and often demonstrate the bony pathology better than MRI [167]. Post-myelogram CT scans do not show pathology as well in the mid and lateral foramen because the subarachnoid space is not present out to the dorsal root ganglion [167]. Electrodiagnostic studies can be used to help rule out a peripheral neuropathy, but their role in the diagnosis of spinal stenosis is unclear [172]. Diskography may be especially helpful in the diagnosis when symptoms are equivocal and the pain generator can be isolated through symptom provocation [12].

The most severe stenosis usually is located at the level of the spondylolisthesis, but the entire course of each symptomatic nerve root must be thoroughly assessed [167]. Usually the L5 root is compressed in the L4-L5 lateral recess, but there may be other pathology, such as a synovial cyst or disc herniation, affecting the same root or a different root level [167]. Intraforaminal stenosis is relatively common, affecting the L4 nerve root, which is compressed against the inferior aspect of the L4 pedicle by annulus from a pseudohermiation due to the spondylolisthesis [167]. The clinical classification of low back pain based on systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies evaluates clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine [17].

Natural History and Prognosis¶

Within 3 months of symptom onset, approximately 90% of patients with lumbar disc herniation will experience symptomatic improvement without surgery [155]. Most lumbar disc herniations, particularly contained ones, resorb and diminish in size over time [155]. Nonprogressive neurologic deficits originating from the lumbar spine (except cauda equina syndrome) can be treated nonoperatively with expected clinical improvement [68]. If surgery is necessary for lumbar disc herniation, it usually can be delayed 6 to 12 weeks to allow adequate opportunity for improvement [68, 70]. The important exceptions to delaying surgery are patients with cervical myelopathy or progressive neurologic deficits, who are best treated surgically [70].

The primary benefit of surgery for lumbar disc herniation has been noted to occur early on in the first year after surgery, but with time the statistical significance of the improvement appears to be lost [68]. Surgical treatment of intervertebral disk herniation, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and lumbar spinal stenosis provides significant value to the patient over the long term, with no catastrophic progressions to neurologic deficit occurring as a result of watchful waiting [154]. In most patients, decompression without fusion due to central lumbar spinal stenosis seems to achieve clinically relevant improvement within 2 weeks [6]. The occurrence of ligamentum flavum cysts is extremely rare, but it should remain in the differential diagnosis of any extradural intraspinal mass and neurogenic claudication or lumbar radiculopathy [66].

Investigations¶

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging is the standard for advanced spinal imaging and is superior to CT in most circumstances, particularly for identifying infections, tumors, and degenerative changes within discs [110]. MRI provides superior direct imaging of neural structures and the nerve root within the foramen [110]. However, MRI consistently underestimates the lumbar spinal canal cross-sectional area compared to CT, a discrepancy that could impact surgical planning and outcomes [188]. Findings must be correlated with clinical impression, as abnormal anatomy may be asymptomatic; MRI evidence of lumbar disc degeneration was found in 35% of patients aged 20 to 39 years and in 100% of patients older than 50 years [110]. The most effective approach to interpreting MRI is to pose specific questions regarding neural compression, instability, and deformity derived from history and physical examination [110]. Modic changes, particularly Type 2, are common radiological findings in lumbar spine imaging, most frequently occurring at L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels [228]. Findings on magnetic resonance scans were not predictive of the development or duration of low-back pain in asymptomatic subjects [225].

CT: Myelography is indicated when MRI cannot be obtained, when there is suspicion of an intraspinal lesion, in patients with spinal instrumentation causing artifact, or when diagnosis is questionable due to conflicting findings [117]. Myelography is valuable in evaluating previously operated spines and in patients with marked bony degenerative change that may be underestimated on MRI [117]. The diagnostic utility of myelography is improved by the use of postmyelography CT, particularly in evaluating spinal stenosis [117]. Plain radiographs, MRI, and/or myelogram with CT are indicated to delineate the pattern and degree of stenosis in patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment or deteriorate neurologically [46].

Other Considerations: MRI combined with paraspinal mapping or diffusion tensor imaging showed clear benefits in determining decompression levels of lumbar spinal stenosis compared to MRI combined with neurological examination [168]. A positive lumbar extension test is highly predictive of lumbar spinal stenosis [46]. A vascular examination must be performed in all patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis [46]. EMG may be helpful to distinguish peripheral neuropathy from lumbar spinal stenosis [46]. Needle EMG has a lower false positive rate than MRI in asymptomatic older adults being evaluated for lumbar spinal stenosis [10]. The clinical examination findings for identifying common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine have been evaluated in a comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies [17].

Treatment¶

Non-Operative¶

In patients with intervertebral disc herniation and persistent symptoms, clinical improvement occurs after either operative or nonoperative treatment [61]. Except in emergent circumstances, such as rapidly progressive neurologic deficits or the threat of cauda equina syndrome, 6 to 8 weeks of nonsurgical treatment with appropriate medication and conservative care is routine before proceeding with surgical intervention [12]. Current research efforts include randomized controlled trials evaluating the cost-effectiveness of surgical decompression versus prolonged conservative treatment for lumbar stenosis [32], as well as protocols assessing the impact of activity restrictions on clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy [23].

Operative¶

Indications: Lumbar decompression remains the benchmark for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, and there is no benefit to routinely performing fusion [71]. In patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis, decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion [24]. Similarly, in patients with spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression surgery alone was noninferior to decompression surgery with instrumented fusion for reducing impairment at 2 years [38]. However, if a complete facetectomy or extensive bone removal is needed to adequately decompress the L4 nerve root, a fusion should be added [130]. Spinal fusion is not done for recurrent disc herniation unless an unstable spine is created by the dissection or was identified preoperatively as a correctable and symptomatic problem [31]. Fusion is indicated in conjunction with removal of a protruded intervertebral disc when residual or recurrent lumbar pain can reasonably be anticipated based on patient history, physical examination, and roentgenographic findings [36]. The main argument for and against decompression alone is whether instability should be treated with instrumented fusion procedures, though there is disagreement on how instability should be defined [90].

Surgical Approach / Technique: Posterior decompression with instrumented fusion is the most common surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, though individual patient factors must guide the selection of the specific strategy [54]. The preferred procedure for treating degenerative spondylolisthesis is posterolateral fusion combined with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [150]. For a complete laminectomy, the entire spinous process of the laminectomy level and the caudal one third of the cephalad level are removed to allow adequate access to the nerve roots [130]. An alternative technique to complete laminectomy is a laminoforaminotomy, which can be unilateral or bilateral, and achieving an adequate decompression is the primary goal [130]. Complete laminectomy may be necessary if adequate decompression is impossible through the limited laminotomy in patients with severe involvement [65]. A minimally invasive technique allows decompression of the significant compressing anatomy while preserving paraspinal muscles, the spinous processes, and intervening supraspinous and interspinous ligaments [65]. Results with full-endoscopic techniques have been shown to be equal to those of conventional procedures, with advantages of fewer complications [65]. The unilateral biportal endoscopic technique is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgical treatment method for multi-level lumbar spinal stenosis [124]. Both percutaneous endoscopic large channels nerve decompression through a translaminar approach and percutaneous endoscopy conventional channels nerve decompression through a transforaminal approach can achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in treating degenerative L4/5 spinal stenosis [127]. The interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy technique is typically used for posterolateral herniations at L5-S1 but can be used at higher levels if the interlaminar window is wide enough to accommodate the operative cannula [143]. The interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy is a facet-sparing technique used when there is no need for lateral recess decompression [143]. The transforaminal endoscopic approach can be used for recurrence after a traditional microdiscectomy, and if both approaches are transforaminal, the total level of invasiveness is typically less than a primary microscopic approach since there is no violation of the facet joint [31]. The awake transforaminal endoscopic approach to the thoracic spine typically can reach herniations from T4 to L4, does not require violation of the chest cavity, usually does not require fusion, and does not even require general anesthesia [136]. A diagnostic transforaminal epidural injection at the site of a thoracic disc herniation that provides profound relief is a good predictor of surgical outcome for endoscopic surgery [136]. The Wiltse and Spencer approach involves making fascial incisions 3 cm off the midline at the approximate interval between the multifidus and longissimus muscles to develop a plane down to the facet joint [139]. In situ posterolateral instrumented fusion can be performed using the Wiltse and Spencer approach with pedicle screw fixation [139]. The direct lateral or far lateral approaches to the interbody space in the lumbar spine are especially useful for degenerative scoliosis and allow for complete disc resection with a bony bed for fusion [146]. The oblique anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine provides access with few early complications [159]. Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion [162]. Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a large cage is a straightforward, safe, and minimally invasive method for inserting large cages in the treatment of lumbar instability [125]. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression with removal of the posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body is a technique for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis [174]. Lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion are both surgical options for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis [175]. En bloc resection of the ligamentum flavum is a technique used for bilateral decompression in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [192]. Posterior lateral lumbar fusion surgery which preserves partial facet joint unilaterally during neural decompression can offer greater benefits to patients under strict adherence to surgical indications [74].

Implant Selection: No differences were found in 90-day aggregated postoperative adverse events and 5-year lumbar revision surgery rates between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral approaches for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, suggesting that instrumentation can be safely performed and that both approaches had similarly durable results [92]. Initial studies suggest that the results of posterior dynamic stabilization may be comparable to those of fusion; however, longer periods of clinical and radiographic follow-up are required to fully define the role these devices may play in the management of the degenerative lumbar spine [43]. The DIAM implant could be considered a useful intermediate step procedure for lumbar disc herniation surgery [63]. Symptom improvement occurred with either the X-Stop device or minimally invasive decompression, but complications were more severe with minimally invasive decompression [26]. The X-Stop device resulted in a higher reoperation rate than minimally invasive decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis [26].

Alignment / Balancing Strategy: We recommended limited conservative lordotic correction in patients with pre-operative foraminal narrowing to avoid iatrogenic foraminal stenosis [214].

Pain Management: Epidural morphine appreciably lessened pain during the first postoperative day compared to controls in patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy, but the total postoperative dose of morphine received was not diminished [244]. Postoperative lower back pain was significantly diminished at follow-up visits in patients undergoing pedicle screw fixation and posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases [248].

Adjuncts: Computer-navigation and robotic devices can be helpful in the placement of pedicle screws but are typically reserved for placement across a fusion mass that has lost all anatomic landmarks or in severe deformities where anatomy is difficult to identify [146]. VATS surgery provides excellent visualization through relatively small incisions with the potential to decrease blood loss, post-operative pain, periscapular winging, and pulmonary dysfunction, but the learning curve is very steep [146]. In adult patients with spinal deformity, structural grafts may be more difficult to place endoscopically due to prevalent osteoporosis and osteopenia, limiting the application of VATS [146]. Laparoscopic and VATS techniques have been applied to anterior spine surgery, but they are seldom used currently because of the risk of catastrophic complications [149].

Setting of Care: ED utilization rates following endoscopic lumbar decompression are similar to those following open lumbar decompression [5]. This report describes the first enhanced recovery after surgery protocol used in elderly patients after short-level lumbar fusion surgery [83].

Revision: Patients with scoliosis, especially with listhesis, have a significantly higher revision rate for minimally invasive decompression than those without scoliosis [65]. Degenerative disease and mechanical failure were the most common etiologies comprising a 5-year revision rate of 16.5% after elective multilevel lumbar instrumented fusion in older patients [94]. The complication rate for patients undergoing adult spinal deformity surgery is high, and patients should be counseled on their risk for short- and long-term complications and need for potential revision surgery [71].

Other Considerations: Neuro decompression can be effective for lumbar spinal stenosis surgical outcomes in patients with central sensitization; nonetheless, it should be approached with caution owing to the potential for worsening low back pain [14]. The data suggest that it is reasonable to operate on patients who are elderly and obese and who have lumbar symptoms, with the appropriate indications [35]. Operative treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis offered a significant benefit over nonoperative treatment in patients at least eighty years of age [128]. Beneficial effects of surgical intervention for lumbar synovial cysts persist long term, though some patients will develop late-onset low back pain, radicular pain, and may need additional surgery [91]. The authors advise that patients undergoing lumbar decompressive surgery should have sagittal whole spine MRI studies pre-operatively to exclude proximal neurological compression [22]. In the absence of myelopathy, simultaneous decompression may be considered in patients who can tolerate longer operative times for tandem spinal stenosis [220]. If neurologic deficits are found in intraspinal gout, surgical decompression can provide a satisfactory outcome [39]. The advantages of operation for lumbosacral spinal tuberculosis include thoroughness of debridement, decompression of the spinal cord, and adequate spinal stabilization [120]. A better understanding of postoperative sudden sensorineural hearing loss is crucial to improve the safety profile of spinal surgery [37]. It is crucial to meticulously evaluate the indications for percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy due to potential risks associated with spinal anesthesia [237]. The approach of lumbar decompression under large-channel spinal endoscope in elderly patients alleviated pain, reduced ODI and JOA scores, and restored lumbar function, with decreased incidence of adverse reactions [33]. The objective of the literature review on management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is to provide evidence-based recommendations reflected in the highest-quality clinical literature available [2]. Although the surgical treatment of common pathologies including lumbar spinal stenosis results in predictable good outcomes, there remains much research to be done to further optimize outcomes and determine the best treatment strategy for individual patterns of instability [71]. The role of novel minimally invasive strategies for decompression, fusion, and deformity correction remains to be fully elucidated, and better high-level studies are required [71]. Additional studies are required to elucidate which patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis can undergo a decompression only, which require a fusion, and which can benefit from interbody fusion [71]. The incidence of incidental dural tears in microendoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery is 5.05%, with patient age and bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach identified as risk factors [64]. Spinous process osteotomy was associated with a 47% improvement in the Low Back Outcome Score and a 66% improvement in average pain level in 46 of 50 patients evaluated 9 months after surgery [65]. The only complications reported for spinous process osteotomy were dural tears in four patients [65]. Lumbar discal hernia removal techniques have greatly evolved in terms of instrumentation over the last 30 years, but without any spectacular improvement in clinical results [56]. Reported complications of combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation have included intraoperative bowel injury, motor radiculopathy, and postoperative thigh paresthesias or dysesthesias [146]. The rate of major complications after a far lateral approach in one study compared favorably to that of other procedures at 12% [146]. Complications, primarily related to nerve root injury or irritation, have been reported in 22% of patients after a minimally invasive direct lateral anterior lumbar fusion and extreme lateral interbody fusion [149]. Supplementary posterior instrumentation must be used to maintain stability after percutaneous anterior lumbar arthrodesis via the lateral approach [149]. The Felix-trial involves double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication [60].

Complications¶

Intraoperative and Immediate Postoperative¶

The learning curve for minimally invasive lumbar decompression is steep, with all cases of durotomy, neurologic injury, and conversion to open procedures occurring within the initial 30 cases of a surgeon’s experience [84]. The combined complication rate for these initial 30 cases was 11% (31 of 283), compared to 0% (0 of 117) after the 30th consecutive case [84]. In a systematic review of 580 cases, the overall complication rate was 6%, with durotomy (n = 25), nerve root compromise (n = 3), and incorrect level operation (n = 2) being the most frequently reported events [84]. The rate of conversion to open technique was 2% (five of 247) [84]. In a series of spinous process osteotomy for decompression, the only complications reported were dural tears in four patients [65]. In a series of 502 lumbar disc operations, discitis occurred in 15 patients (2.8%) [257]. Postoperative sudden sensorineural hearing loss has been reported as a complication following posterior lumbar decompression [37].

Infection and Wound Complications¶

The 30-day surgical site infection rate for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis was 0.7% [232]. In a meta-analysis of lumbar fusion outcomes, the deep infection rate was 1.5% [234]. Biportal endoscopic discectomy has distinct advantages in terms of postoperative wound complications compared to microscopic discectomy [34]. The extension of postoperative antibiotics for 72 hours when a closed-suction drain is required was not associated with a reduction in the rate of complicated surgical site infection after posterior thoracolumbar spinal surgery [265].

Thromboembolic and Systemic Complications¶

For patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, the 30-day deep vein thrombosis rate was 1.2% and the 30-day pulmonary embolism rate was 0.7% [232]. The 30-day pneumonia or reintubation rate was 0.4%, the 30-day urinary tract infection rate was 0.4%, and the 30-day transfusion rate was 8.3% [232]. In a meta-analysis of lumbar fusion outcomes, the deep venous thrombosis rate was 3.7% and the pulmonary embolus rate was 2.2% [234]. Patients who have incidental durotomies during lumbar laminectomy or laminotomy had nearly double the odds of venous thromboembolism, primarily in the first five days [211]. In a nationwide database analysis, the effect of dural tear on in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burdens was more significant in lumbar spinal decompression than in lumbar discectomy [52].

Neurologic and Functional Complications¶

The overall 30-day complication rate for patients undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis was 16.6% [232]. The 30-day unplanned return to the operating room rate was 3.6% and the 30-day readmission rate was 5.9% [232]. In a meta-analysis of lumbar fusion outcomes, the neural injury rate was 2.8% [234]. The incidence of postoperative urinary retention after lumbar decompression surgery was 6.9% [250]. In a series of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for downmigrated disc herniation, three cases had transient paresthesias after surgery which disappeared in 2 to 3 weeks, with no complications such as nerve injury, CSF leakage, or wound infection [189].

Reoperation and Revision¶

The combined reoperation rate for minimally invasive lumbar decompression was 3% (19 of 580) [84]. Lumbar diskectomy has an 84% durability at 4-year follow-up, with early revision surgery for complications occurring in 3.3% of patients and late revision for recurrent pathology occurring in 11.6% [258]. Seven percent of lumbar disc patients had a residive lumbar disc operation within five years of their first operation [87]. Additional operations after primary lumbar disc surgery are needed more frequently than previously reported, and the outcome profoundly deteriorates after the second additional operation [76]. A dose-response relationship exists between the increasing number of previous operations and inferior outcomes among patients operated for degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine [262]. In a military population, 9.6% of patients requiring revision surgery after single-level lumbar microdiscectomy would require two or more revision surgeries, and 42.1% of revision microdiscectomy patients would ultimately undergo a lumbar arthrodesis at the same level as the initial disk herniation [263]. The 5-year revision rate after elective multilevel lumbar instrumented fusion in older patients was 16.5%, with degenerative disease and mechanical failure being the most common etiologies [94]. The revision rate after limited decompression of lumbar facet cysts was 20.4% [269]. Patients undergoing posterior or combined surgery for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis had higher odds of requiring revision surgery within 90 days compared to anterior approaches [270]. Revision biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion demonstrates increased surgical time and durotomy risks compared with primary cases [267].

Adjacent Segment and Long-term Degeneration¶

Twenty-nine percent of patients developed radiologic adjacent segment degeneration 2 years after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis, with a surgical revision rate of 10% [96]. Developmental spinal stenosis is a poor prognostic indicator for the risk of re-operation on an adjacent segment after decompression-only surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis [25]. In a meta-analysis of lumbar fusion outcomes, the donor-site complication rate was 10.8% and the instrumentation failure rate was 7.3% [234]. Published complication rates for degenerative lumbar scoliosis surgery range from 20% to 40% [217]. Reported complications for degenerative lumbar scoliosis surgery include pseudarthrosis, wound infection, paresthesias, radiculopathy, cerebrospinal fluid fistulas, pulmonary emboli, myocardial infarction, hardware failure, drug reaction, urinary tract infection, compression fractures, adult respiratory distress syndrome, and a high rate of revision surgery [217]. Vertebral compression fracture is a possible complication in patients with osteopenia having extended lumbar spinal arthrodesis [272]. An anterior approach for removal of infected lumbar interbody cages often requires an additional extension of posterior instrumentation due to the high incidence of concurrent pedicle screw loosening [271]. In a series of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, the complication rate was 36% [226].

Other Considerations¶

In a series of 15 patients undergoing oblique lateral internal fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for severe lumbar spinal stenosis, the mean estimated blood loss was 76.7 ± 25.8 mL [126]. In a meta-analysis of lumbar fusion outcomes, the mortality rate was 0.2% [234].

Recovery¶

Light activity (weeks): Objective activity tracking demonstrates a decrease in activity amount 1 month just after surgery [255]. Clinically relevant improvement in central lumbar spinal stenosis is typically achieved within 2 weeks [6].

Full activity (months): Objective activity tracking demonstrates gradual postoperative recovery of activity levels within 3 months after lumbar surgery [255].

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): The evidence provided does not specify a distinct timeline for complete recovery or outcome plateau beyond the initial 3-month activity recovery window. Long-term outcome data for lumbar synovial cysts are available at an average of nearly ten years post-operative [91].

Rehabilitation protocol: Evaluation of all aspects of physical performance following lumbar decompression surgery is recommended [77]. A randomized controlled trial protocol exists to assess the impact of activity restrictions on clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy [23]. Another randomized controlled trial protocol evaluates the effectiveness of a treatment regimen involving exercise and patient education after single-level lumbar microdiscectomy [183]. A trial is designed to determine whether the outcome of spinal surgery can be enhanced by a postoperative rehabilitation programme, an evidence-based advice booklet, or a combination of the two [210]. An enhanced recovery after surgery protocol has been described for elderly patients after short-level lumbar fusion surgery [83].

Functional milestones: At 2 years follow-up, the decompression only group showed an average improvement in Roland-Morris questionnaire score of 6.9 points [55]. The decompression with fusion group showed an average improvement of 6.1 points [55]. The nonsurgically treated group showed an average improvement of 1.2 points [55]. At 2 years follow-up, 63.3% of patients in the decompression only group improved by more than 4 points on the Roland-Morris questionnaire [55]. In the decompression with fusion group, 61.5% of patients improved by more than 4 points [55]. In the nonsurgical group, 25% of patients improved by more than 4 points [55]. Conversely, 4% of patients in the decompression only group worsened by more than 4 points [55]. In the decompression with fusion group, 2.6% of patients worsened by more than 4 points [55]. In the nonsurgical group, 12.5% of patients worsened by more than 4 points [55]. In single-level decompression, the Oswestry Disability Index improved from 62.98 ± 11.53 before surgery to 18.51 ± 8.63 at final follow-up [41].

Other Considerations: Beneficial effects of surgical intervention for lumbar synovial cysts persist long term [91]. However, some patients undergoing microdecompression for lumbar synovial cysts develop late-onset low back pain, radicular pain, and may need additional surgery [91]. Additional operations after primary disc surgery are needed more frequently than previously reported [76]. The outcome profoundly deteriorates after the second additional operation following primary disc surgery [76]. In a propensity-matched analysis of 450 patients, repeat microdiscectomy and instrumented fusion for recurrent lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes [93]. However, the repeat microdiscectomy group had dramatically higher reoperation rates over 5 years compared to the instrumented fusion group [93]. Two patients underwent reoperation for stenosis at an adjacent level during the 2-year follow-up period in a study comparing surgical and nonsurgical treatments [55]. There were no occurrences of cauda equina syndrome or other severe neurologic problems in any of the three patient groups during the 2-year follow-up period [55]. Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has low recurrence and complication rates [259].

Neuro decompression can be effective for lumbar spinal stenosis surgical outcomes in patients with central sensitization [14]. Neuro decompression in patients with central sensitization should be approached with caution owing to the potential for worsening low back pain [14]. Pre-existing L5-S1 degeneration does not affect clinical and radiographical outcomes after isolated L4-5 fusion [27]. The magnitude of intervertebral range of motion showed no correlation to clinical score parameters one year after microsurgical decompression [80]. A discectomy does not always provide the final solution to lumbar disc disease in children, but careful selection of patients and follow-up can produce satisfactory long-term results in most [256].

A reasonable return-to-work rate can be expected in patients requiring fusion for lumbar disc herniation [215]. Surgical management of selected lumbar spine conditions can produce excellent outcomes in athletes of all sports [230]. Microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation leads to favorable return to play rates in athletes [230]. Direct pars repair leads to high return to play rates in athletes [230]. National Hockey League players with a lumbar disc herniation can successfully return to play after surgery [254]. Performance-based outcomes for National Hockey League players may decrease compared with preinjury levels after surgery for lumbar disc herniation [254]. Lumbar spine surgery can facilitate the return of military pilots to their profession after posterior lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis [186].

Key Evidence¶

[L5] Short-term follow-up data indicate that operative management provides more effective relief than nonoperative treatment, but prospective studies comparing the effects of nonoperative and operative interventions on the long-term natural history of lumbar spinal stenosis are needed. [1] (10.5435/00124635-199907000-00004)
[L2] The objective of this literature review is to provide evidence-based recommendations reflected in the highest-quality clinical literature available to address key clinical questions surrounding the management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. [2] (10.1302/2058-5241.1.000030)
[L1] In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, adding fusion surgery to decompression surgery did not improve outcomes at 2 years. [3] (10.2106/jbjs.16.00885)
[L2] The NORDSTEN/DS trial has the potential to provide Level 1 evidence of whether decompression alone should be advocated as the preferred method or not. [4] (10.1186/s12891-018-2384-0)
[L4] Notably, ED utilization rates following endoscopic lumbar decompression are similar to those following open lumbar decompression previously published in the literature. [5] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-25-00009)
[L3] In most patients, decompression without fusion due to CLSS seems to achieve clinically relevant improvement within 2 weeks. [6] (10.1186/s13018-024-04614-1)
[L5] Current practice recommendations for spinal stenosis are based on expert opinion rather than empirical evidence due to a lack of randomized trials and heterogeneous patient populations in existing literature. [7] (10.1097/01.blo.0000198722.70138.96)
[L5] Recent prospective randomized studies have demonstrated that surgery is superior to nonsurgical management in terms of controlling pain and improving function in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. [11] (10.5435/jaaos-20-08-527)
[L5] [12] (10.5435/00124635-200203000-00003)
[L1] This supports decompression alone as the preferred method of surgery for spinal stenosis, whether or not a degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively. [13] (10.1302/0301-620x.104b12.bjj-2022-0340.r1)
[L3] Neuro decompression can be effective for LSS surgical outcomes in patients with central sensitization; nonetheless, it should be approached with caution owing to the potential for worsening low back pain. [14] (10.1186/s13018-023-04376-2)
[L1] Decompression alone demonstrates non-inferiority in terms of efficacy for treating low back pain due to DS compared to fusion, with additional benefits in operation time and blood loss. [15] (10.1186/s13018-025-06550-0)
[L1] This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. [17] (10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6)
[L4] With proper patient selection, posterior decompression with instrumented fusion can be safe and effective for patients 80 years of age and older with degenerative lumbar conditions. [18] (10.1186/s12891-016-1239-9)
[L4] The authors advise that patients undergoing lumbar decompressive surgery should have sagittal whole spine MRI studies pre-operatively to exclude proximal neurological compression. [22] (10.1302/0301-620x.95b10.31222)
[L2] This document describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of activity restrictions on clinical outcomes following lumbar discectomy, aiming to provide an evidence base for postoperative care. [23] (10.1186/s12891-017-1681-3)
[L1] Therefore, decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. [24] (10.1186/s12891-024-07641-5)
[L3] This is a poor prognostic indicator that can be identified prior to index decompression surgery. [25] (10.1302/0301-620x.101b2.bjj-2018-1136.r2)
[L1] Symptom improvement occurred with either the X-Stop device or MIS decompression, but complications were more severe with MIS decompression. [26] (10.2106/jbjs.9722.ebo101)
[L3] Pre-existing L5-S1 degeneration does not affect clinical and radiographical outcomes after isolated L4-5 fusion. [27] (10.1186/s13018-015-0186-8)
[L2] The paper presents the design of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgical decompression versus prolonged conservative treatment for lumbar stenosis, aiming to address insufficient data on relative benefit and safety. [32] (10.1186/1471-2474-12-57)
[L2] The approach also alleviated pain, reduced ODI and JOA scores, and restored lumbar function, with decreased incidence of adverse reactions, thereby promoting patient recovery. [33] (10.1186/s13018-023-04389-x)
[L1] BED is as effective as MD in treating single-level lumbar disc herniation but has distinct advantages in terms of postoperative wound complications. [34] (10.1302/0301-620x.107b5.bjj-2024-1560.r1)
[L3] The data suggest that it is reasonable to operate on patients who are elderly and obese and who have lumbar symptoms, with the appropriate indications. [35] (10.1097/01.blo.0000141901.23322.98)
[L5] Fusion is indicated in conjunction with removal of a protruded intervertebral disc when residual or recurrent lumbar pain can reasonably be anticipated based on patient history, physical examination, and roentgenographic findings. [36] (10.2106/00004623-196850010-00016)
[L5] A better understanding of this devastating condition is crucial to improve the safety profile of spinal surgery. [37] (10.1007/bf03021068)
[L1] In patients with spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression surgery alone was noninferior to decompression surgery with instrumented fusion for reducing impairment at 2 years. [38] (10.2106/jbjs.22.00307)
[L4] If neurologic deficits are found, surgical decompression can provide a satisfactory outcome. [39] (10.1097/01.blo.0000151456.52270.39)
[L1] Regarding single-level decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, group U had the advantages of shorter operation time than group C, but not in terms of back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life. [40] (10.1186/s13018-019-1298-3)
[L3] Oswestry Disability Index improved from 62.98 ± 11.53 before surgery to 18.51 ± 8.63 at the final follow-up in single-level decompression. [41] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00371)
[L3] This protocol describes a prospective multicenter cohort study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic decompression versus open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis, and to investigate prognosis risk factors and the influence of the procedure on spinal stability and adjacent level degeneration. [42] (10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4)
[L5] Initial studies suggest that the results of posterior dynamic stabilization may be comparable to those of fusion; however, longer periods of clinical and radiographic follow-up are required to fully define the role these devices may play in the management of the degenerative lumbar spine. [43] (10.5435/00124635-201010000-00001)
[L4] Age is not a contraindication for decompressive lumbar spine surgery. [47] (10.1186/s13018-020-01968-0)
[L1] Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis. [50] (10.1302/0301-620x.106b7.bjj-2023-1160.r2)
[L3] The effect of dural tear on in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burdens was more significant in lumbar spinal decompression than in lumbar discectomy. [52] (10.1007/s00402-013-1843-1)
[L4] Posterior decompression with instrumented fusion is the most common surgical treatment, though individual patient factors must guide the selection of the specific strategy. [54] (10.1302/2058-5241.3.170050)
[L2] [55] (10.1097/blo.0b013e31803799a9)
[Paper] Lumbar discal hernia removal techniques have greatly evolved in terms of instrumentation over the last 30 years, but without any spectacular improvement in clinical results. [56] (10.1016/j.otsr.2012.11.005)
[L2] [60] (10.1186/1471-2474-11-100)
[L1] In patients with intervertebral disc herniation and persistent symptoms, patients improved after either operative or nonoperative treatment. [61] (10.2106/jbjs.8905.ebo3)
[L3] The authors suggest that DIAM implantation could be considered a useful intermediate step procedure for lumbar disc herniation surgery. [63] (10.1186/s12891-021-04929-8)
[L3] The incidence of incidental dural tears in microendoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery is 5.05%, with patient age and bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach identified as risk factors. [64] (10.1302/0301-620x.96b5.32957)
[L4] The occurrence is extremely rare, but it should remain in the differential diagnosis of any extradural intraspinal mass and neurogenic claudication or lumbar radiculopathy. [66] (10.1186/1749-799x-5-81)
[L3] Under strict adherence to surgical indications, posterior lateral lumbar fusion surgery which preserves partial facet joint unilaterally during neural decompression can offer greater benefits to patients. [74] (10.1186/s13018-024-05020-3)
[L3] Additional operations after primary disc surgery are needed more frequently than previously reported, and the outcome profoundly deteriorates after the second additional operation. [76] (10.1302/0301-620x.104b5.bjj-2021-1706.r2)
[L4] The evaluation of all aspects of physical performance following lumbar decompression surgery is also recommended. [77] (10.1186/s13018-023-04462-5)
[L4] The magnitude of intervertebral range of motion showed no correlation to clinical score parameters. [80] (10.1186/s12891-022-05701-2)
[L3] This report describes the first enhanced recovery after surgery protocol used in elderly patients after short-level lumbar fusion surgery. [83] (10.1186/s13018-020-01814-3)
[L1] [84] (10.1007/s11999-014-3495-z)
[L2] This study demonstrates a substantial benefit for patients sixty-five years of age or older with degenerative disc disease who are treated with a single-level lumbar decompression and instrumented arthrodesis, and we conclude that lumbar arthrodesis is a viable and reasonable treatment option for appropriately selected patients sixty-five years of age or older. [86] (10.2106/jbjs.i.01300)
[L3] Seven percent of the lumbar disc patients had a residive lumbar disc operation within five years of their first operation. [87] (10.1186/1471-2474-8-2)
[L2] The main argument identified for and against decompression alone is whether or not instability should be treated with (instrumented) fusion procedures, though there is disagreement on how instability should be defined. [90] (10.1186/s12891-015-0548-8)
[L3] This study provides outcome data at an average of nearly ten years post-operative, demonstrating that beneficial effects of surgical intervention persist long term, though some patients will develop late-onset low back pain, radicular pain, and may need additional surgery. [91] (10.1186/1749-799x-2-5)
[L4] No differences were found in 90-day aggregated postoperative adverse events and 5-year lumbar revision surgery rates, suggesting that instrumentation can be safely performed and that both approaches had similarly durable results. [92] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-25-00192)
[L3] This propensity-matched analysis of 450 patients demonstrated that repeat MD and IF for recurrent lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes but with dramatically higher reoperation rates over 5 years in the repeat MD group. [93] (10.2106/jbjs.25.01113)
[L3] Degenerative disease and mechanical failure were the most common etiologies comprising a 5-year revision rate of 16.5% after elective multilevel lumbar instrumented fusion in older patients. [94] (10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00643)
[L4] Twenty-nine percent of patients developed radiologic adjacent segment degeneration, with a surgical revision rate of 10%. [96] (10.1016/j.otsr.2016.03.012)
[L4] The advantages of operation include thoroughness of debridement, decompression of the spinal cord, and adequate spinal stabilization. [120] (10.1371/journal.pone.0130185)
[L4] It is a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgical treatment method for multi-level lumbar spinal stenosis. [124] (10.1186/s13018-024-04575-5)
[L4] The technique is a straightforward, safe, and minimally invasive method for inserting large cages in the treatment of lumbar instability. [125] (10.1186/s13018-024-05018-x)
[L4] [126] (10.1186/s13018-023-04373-5)
[L3] Both surgical methods can achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy in treating degenerative lumbar 4/5 spinal stenosis. [127] (10.1186/s12891-025-08623-x)
[L2] Operative treatment of lumbar stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis offered a significant benefit over nonoperative treatment in patients at least eighty years of age. [128] (10.2106/jbjs.n.00313)
[L5] No clinically applicable and validated classification of spinal stenosis has been published, which has substantially limited the development of an evidence-based algorithm for treatment. [135] (10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00034)
[L3] The modified classification has good reliability and its experience level of spine surgeons does not affect the reliability. [140] (10.1186/s13018-023-03688-7)
[L5] Orthopaedic surgeons must distinguish lumbar radiculopathy from a myriad of mimicking pathologies, including musculoskeletal, neurogenic, immunogenic, and iatrogenic conditions, to avoid misdiagnosis and delays in appropriate care. [151] (10.5435/jaaos-23-01-7)
[L4] Surgical treatment of intervertebral disk herniation, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and lumbar spinal stenosis provides significant value to the patient over the long term, with no catastrophic progressions to neurologic deficit occurring as a result of watchful waiting. [154] (10.5435/jaaos-20-03-160)
[L4] [159] (10.1007/s11999-016-4883-3)
[L4] [162] (10.1186/s12891-021-04086-y)
[L3] Clinically significant improvement in leg numbness was observed in the majority of patients within 6 months after lumbar decompression surgery, and the improvement of leg numbness was slower than leg pain. [165] (10.1186/s12891-022-05848-y)
[L3] The sagittal orientation of the facets was part of the preexisting morphology and was not solely a secondary result of spondylolisthesis. [166] (10.2106/00004623-199603000-00012)
[L2] MRI + (PM or DTI) showed clear benefits in determining decompression levels of lumbar spinal stenosis than MRI + NE. [168] (10.1186/s13018-016-0382-1)
[L5] A new classification system that incorporates spinopelvic balance in the radiographic assessment may aid orthopaedic surgeons in identifying patients who would benefit from partial reduction and fusion. [171] (10.5435/jaaos-20-04-194)
[L4] [174] (10.1186/s12891-024-07267-7)
[L3] [175] (10.1186/s12891-020-03820-2)
[L3] This article presents the rationale and design for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a treatment regimen for people who have undergone a single-level lumbar microdiscectomy. [183] (10.1186/1471-2474-7-70)
[L3] [184] (10.1186/s13018-026-06902-4)
[L4] [185] (10.1186/s12891-019-2753-3)
[L4] Lumbar spine surgery can successfully alleviate the physical constraints associated with spinal conditions, facilitating the return of military pilots to their demanding profession. [186] (10.1186/s12891-024-07175-w)
[L4] MRI consistently underestimated the lumbar spinal canal cross-sectional area compared to CT, which could impact surgical planning and outcomes. [188] (10.1186/s13018-025-05653-y)
[L4] [189] (10.1186/s12891-021-04548-3)
[L3] [192] (10.1186/s13018-024-05317-3)
[L4] [208] (10.1186/s12891-021-04811-7)
[L1] This trial will determine whether the outcome of spinal surgery can be enhanced by either a postoperative rehabilitation programme or an evidence-based advice booklet or a combination of the two. [210] (10.1186/1471-2474-11-17)
[L3] Patients who have incidental durotomies during lumbar laminectomy or laminotomy had nearly double the odds of VTE, primarily in the first five days. [211] (10.5435/jaaos-d-22-00917)
[L3] We recommended limited conservative lordotic correction in patients with pre-operative foraminal narrowing. [214] (10.1186/s13018-015-0297-2)
[L3] While the difference is significant, a reasonable return-to-work rate can still be expected in patients requiring fusion for lumbar disc herniation. [215] (10.1186/s13018-021-02682-1)
[L5] [217] (10.5435/00124635-200305000-00004)
[L2] In the absence of myelopathy, simultaneous decompression may be considered in patients who can tolerate longer operative times. [220] (10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00824)
[L2] The findings on magnetic resonance scans were not predictive of the development or duration of low-back pain. [225] (10.2106/00004623-200109000-00002)
[Paper] However, given the 36% complication rate in this series, the authors do not recommend it unless decisive technical improvements are made. [226] (10.1007/s00264-013-1905-6)
[L4] Modic changes, particularly Type 2, are common radiological findings in lumbar spine imaging, most frequently occurring at L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels. [228] (10.1186/s12891-025-09182-x)
[L4] Surgical management of selected lumbar spine conditions can produce excellent outcomes in athletes of all sports, with microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation leading to favorable return to play rates and direct pars repair leading to high return to play rates. [230] (10.1016/j.csm.2016.05.006)
[L3] [232] (10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-18-00085)
[L4] [234] (10.5435/00124635-199505000-00002)
[L5] [235] (10.1097/01.blo.0000130841.41657.d3)
[L3] However, it is crucial to meticulously evaluate the indications due to potential risks associated with this form of anesthesia. [237] (10.1186/s12891-024-07898-w)
[L1] Epidural morphine appreciably lessened pain during the first postoperative day compared to controls, but the total postoperative dose of morphine received was not diminished. [244] (10.2106/00004623-198466010-00015)
[L3] Postoperative lower back pain was significantly diminished at follow-up visits. [248] (10.1186/s12891-016-0927-9)
[L3] The incidence of POUR after lumbar decompression surgery was found to be 6.9%. [250] (10.2106/jbjs.24.01030)
[L4] National Hockey League players with a lumbar disc herniation can successfully return to play after surgery; however, performance-based outcomes may decrease compared with preinjury levels. [254] (10.1177/0363546513499229)
[L2] The objective activity tracker demonstrated that lumbar surgery results in the amount of activity decreasing 1 month just after surgery followed by gradual postoperative recovery within 3 months. [255] (10.1186/s12891-020-3102-2)
[L4] A discectomy does not always provide the final solution to lumbar disc disease in children, but careful selection of patients and follow-up can produce satisfactory long-term results in most. [256] (10.2106/00004623-199805000-00009)
[L4] Discitis occurred in 15 of 502 lumbar disc operations (2.8 per cent). [257] (10.2106/00004623-196951040-00009)
[L3] Lumbar diskectomy is a relatively durable procedure (84% durability) at 4-year follow-up, with early revision surgery for complications occurring in 3.3% of patients and late revision for recurrent pathology occurring in 11.6%. [258] (10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00292)
[L4] Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression has favorable short- and mid-term pain and functional outcomes with low recurrence and complication rates. [259] (10.1186/s12891-023-07033-1)
[L3] We found a dose-response relationship between increasing number of previous operations and inferior outcomes among patients operated for degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. [262] (10.1302/0301-620x.105b4.bjj-2022-0704.r1)
[L3] Within this group, 9.6% would require two or more revision surgeries and 42.1% of these revision microdiscectomy patients would ultimately undergo a lumbar arthrodesis at the same level as the initial disk herniation. [263] (10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00879)
[L1] The extension of postoperative antibiotics for 72 hours, when a closed-suction drain is required, was not associated with a reduction in the rate of complicated surgical site infection after posterior thoracolumbar spinal surgery. [265] (10.2106/jbjs.19.00009)
[L3] Revision BELIF demonstrates similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with primary BELIF, but surgical time and durotomy risks are increased. [267] (10.5435/jaaos-d-23-01031)
[L4] The revision rate of 20.4% is higher than commonly reported in the literature. [269] (10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00258)
[L3] However, patients undergoing posterior or combined surgery had higher odds of requiring revision surgery within 90 days. [270] (10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00610)
[L3] An anterior approach often requires an additional extension of posterior instrumentation due to the high incidence of concurrent pedicle screw loosening. [271] (10.1186/s13018-021-02535-x)
[L4] The importance of this report lies in alerting spine surgeons to the possibility of this complication, especially among patients with osteopenia having extended lumbar spinal arthrodesis. [272] (10.1097/blo.0b013e3180315082)

References¶

[1] Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis: Diagnosis and Management. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1999. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-199907000-00004

[2] Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review. EFORT Open Reviews. 2016. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000030

[3] In Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Adding Fusion Surgery to Decompression Surgery Did Not Improve Outcomes at 2 Years. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.16.00885

[4] Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumental fusion the NORDSTEN degenerative spondylolisthesis trial (NORDSTEN-DS); study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2384-0

[5] Emergency Department Visits Within Ninety Days of Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-25-00009

[6] Recovery pattern after decompression of central lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective observational cohort study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04614-1

[7] Spinal Stenosis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2006. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000198722.70138.96

[10] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > SPINAL STENOSIS.

[11] Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2012. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-20-08-527

[12] Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Treatment of Intervertebral Disk Herniation. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2002. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200203000-00003

[13] Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized clinical trial with two-year MRI follow-up. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2022. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.104b12.bjj-2022-0340.r1

[14] Association of central sensitization, visceral fat, and surgical outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04376-2

[15] Decompression, decompression plus fusion and decompression plus dynamic stabilization for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-06550-0

[17] Clinical classification in low back pain: best-evidence diagnostic rules based on systematic reviews. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6

[18] Surgical outcomes after instrumented lumbar surgery in patients of eighty years of age and older. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1239-9

[19] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > LUMBAR DISC DISEASE.

[21] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > FAILED SPINE SURGERY.

[22] Neurological deterioration due to missed thoracic spinal stenosis after decompressive lumbar surgery. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2013. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.95b10.31222

[23] Lumbar microdiscectomy and post-operative activity restrictions: a protocol for a single blinded randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2017. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1681-3

[24] Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07641-5

[25] The influence of developmental spinal stenosis on the risk of re-operation on an adjacent segment after decompression-only surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2019. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.101b2.bjj-2018-1136.r2

[26] X-Stop Resulted in a Higher Reoperation Rate Than Minimally Invasive Decompression, But Both Decreased Symptoms of Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.9722.ebo101

[27] Does pre-existing L5-S1 degeneration affect outcomes after isolated L4-5 fusion for spondylolisthesis?. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0186-8

[30] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION WITH PLATING > THORACIC AND LUMBAR INJURIES > CLASSIFICATION.

[31] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > REPEAT LUMBAR DISC SURGERY.

[32] Design of the Verbiest trial: cost-effectiveness of surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment in patients with lumbar stenosis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2011. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-57

[33] Efficacy of lumbar decompression under large-channel spinal endoscope in elderly patients with segmental lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04389-x

[34] Comparing the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic discectomy with microscopic discectomy for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc: a multicentre, prospective, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2025. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.107b5.bjj-2024-1560.r1

[35] Does Obesity Affect the Results of Lumbar Decompressive Spinal Surgery in the Elderly?. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2004. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000141901.23322.98

[36] Indications for Fusion at Time of Removal of Intervertebral Disc. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1968. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-196850010-00016

[37] Postoperative sudden sensorineural hearing loss after posterior lumbar decompression: a case report. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie. 2003. DOI: 10.1007/bf03021068

[38] In Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis, Decompression Surgery Alone Was Noninferior to Decompression Surgery with Instrumented Fusion for Reducing Impairment at 2 Years. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.22.00307

[39] Surgical versus Pharmacologic Treatment of Intraspinal Gout. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2005. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000151456.52270.39

[40] Comparison of bilateral decompression via unilateral laminotomy and conventional laminectomy for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis regarding low back pain, functional outcome, and quality of life - A Randomized Controlled, Prospective Trial. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1298-3

[41] Equivalent Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes Between Single-Level and Multilevel Biportal Endoscopic Decompression at 5-Year Follow-up. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-24-00371

[42] The effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic decompression compared with open decompression and fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: protocol for a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05440-4

[43] Pedicle Screw-based Posterior Dynamic Stabilization in the Lumbar Spine. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon. 2010. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-201010000-00001

[46] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Lumbar Degenerative Disease and Low Back Pain > VI. Lumbar Stenosis.

[47] Linical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients: a retrospective study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01968-0

[50] Decompression alone or decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: five-year clinical results from a randomized clinical trial. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2024. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.106b7.bjj-2023-1160.r2

[52] Incidental dural tear in lumbar spinal decompression and discectomy: analysis of a nationwide database. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-013-1843-1

[53] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE AND INTERNAL DISC DERANGEMENT.

[54] Current trends in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. EFORT Open Reviews. 2018. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170050

[55] Is Spinal Stenosis Better Treated Surgically or Nonsurgically?. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2007. DOI: 10.1097/blo.0b013e31803799a9

[56] Surgical discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: Surgical techniques. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.11.005

[60] The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2010. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-100

[61] Either Surgery or Nonoperative Treatment Led to Improvement in Intervertebral Disc Herniation. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2007. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.8905.ebo3

[63] 15-year survivorship analysis of an interspinous device in surgery for single-level lumbar disc herniation. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04929-8

[64] A prospective study of the incidence and outcomes of incidental dural tears in microendoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2014. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b5.32957

[65] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > LESS-INVASIVE DECOMPRESSION.

[66] Rare ligamentum flavum cyst causing incapacitating lumbar spinal stenosis: Experience with 3 Chinese patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2010. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799x-5-81

[67] Lumbar Decompression and Posterolateral Fusion with or Without Instrumentation. 2020.

[68] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > NATURAL HISTORY OF DISC DISEASE.

[70] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. POSTERIOR APPROACH TO THE LUMBAR SPINE, L1 TO L5 > NATURAL HISTORY OF DISC DISEASE.

[71] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Thoracolumbar Conditions > Summary.

[74] Role of unilateral partial facet joint preservation in postero-lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis presenting bilateral lower limb symptoms: a retrospective study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05020-3

[76] Additional operations after surgery for lumbar disc prolapse. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2022. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.104b5.bjj-2021-1706.r2

[77] The association between disability and physical performance, pain intensity, and pain-related anxiety in patients after lumbar decompression surgery: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04462-5

[80] Influence of microsurgical decompression on segmental stability of the lumbar spine – One-year results in a prospective, consecutive case series using upright, kinetic-positional MRI. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05701-2

[83] Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for elderly patients with short-level lumbar fusion. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01814-3

[84] Complications Associated With the Initial Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3495-z

[86] Outcome of Lumbar Arthrodesis in Patients Sixty-five Years of Age or Older. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2010. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.i.01300

[87] Reoperations after first lumbar disc herniation surgery; a special interest on residives during a 5-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2007. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-2

[90] Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis – a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0548-8

[91] Microdecompression for lumbar synovial cysts: an independent assessment of long term outcomes. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2007. DOI: 10.1186/1749-799x-2-5

[92] Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions Continue to Fade Relative to Instrumented Posterolateral Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Over the Past Decade. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-25-00192

[93] Surgical Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: To Fuse or Not To Fuse. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2026. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.25.01113

[94] 5-Year Revision Rates After Elective Multilevel Lumbar/Thoracolumbar Instrumented Fusions in Older Patients: An Analysis of State Databases. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2022. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00643

[96] Radiologic adjacent segment degeneration 2 years after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.03.012

[100] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > STENOSIS OF THE THORACIC AND LUMBAR SPINE > ANATOMY.

[101] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > DISC AND SPINE ANATOMY > NEURAL ELEMENTS.

[102] Orthopaedic Basic Science Fifth Edition Print Ebook. Lumbar Spondylosis, Degenerative Disk Disease, and Radiculopathy > Introduction.

[104] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Spinal Anatomy > Osseous Anatomy > Lumbar Vertebrae.

[107] Orthopaedic Basic Science Fifth Edition Print Ebook. Lumbar Spondylosis, Degenerative Disk Disease, and Radiculopathy > Lumbar Degenerative Disk.

[110] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING.

[117] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. POSTERIOR APPROACH TO THE LUMBAR SPINE, L1 TO L5 > DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES.

[120] Outcomes and Treatment of Lumbosacral Spinal Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Study of 53 Patients. PLOS ONE. 2015. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130185

[124] Early efficacy observation of the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique in the treatment of multi-level lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04575-5

[125] Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with large cage: a technique without additional spacer portal. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05018-x

[126] Oblique lateral internal fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in severe lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical and radiographic outcome. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04373-5

[127] Comparison of clinical efficacy between Percutaneous Endoscopic Large channels nerve decompression through Translaminar approach and Percutaneous Endoscopy Conventional channels nerve decompression through Transforaminal approach for the treatment of degenerative L4/5 spinal stenosis: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08623-x

[128] Effectiveness of Surgery for Lumbar Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis in the Octogenarian Population. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 2015. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.n.00313

[130] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION.

[134] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > PATHOPHYSIOLOGY.

[135] Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: How Is It Classified?. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2016. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00034

[136] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > THORACIC ENDOSCOPIC DISC EXCISION.

[139] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > IN SITU POSTEROLATERAL INSTRUMENTED FUSION: WILTSE AND SPENCER APPROACH.

[140] Independent reliability and availability analyses of modified classification for migrated lumbar disc herniation. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03688-7

[143] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > INTERLAMINAR ENDOSCOPIC LUMBAR DISCECTOMY.

[146] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > OTHER TECHNIQUES.

[149] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > MINIMALLY INVASIVE ANTERIOR FUSION OF THE LUMBAR SPINE.

[150] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION AND POSTEROLATERAL FUSION WITH OR WITHOUT INSTRUMENTATION > LUMBAR DECOMPRESSION AND COMBINED POSTEROLATERAL AND INTERBODY FUSION (TLIF OR PLIF).

[151] Mimickers of Lumbar Radiculopathy. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2015. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-23-01-7

[154] The Impact of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Results on Orthopaedic Practice. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2012. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-20-03-160

[155] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Lumbar Degenerative Disease and Low Back Pain > V. Disk Herniations/Herniated Nucleus Pulposus.

[159] The Oblique Anterolateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine Provides Access to the Lumbar Spine With Few Early Complications. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4883-3

[162] Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04086-y

[165] Predictive factors for residual leg numbness after decompression surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05848-y

[166] Orientation of the Lumbar Facet Joints. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1996. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199603000-00012

[167] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. OVERVIEW OF LUMBAR AND THORACIC DISC DEGENERATION AND HERNIATION > OPERATIVE PLANNING.

[168] Reducing surgical levels by paraspinal mapping and diffusion tensor imaging techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0382-1

[171] Radiographic Analysis of Spondylolisthesis and Sagittal Spinopelvic Deformity. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2012. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-20-04-194

[172] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Thoracolumbar Conditions > Lumbar Spinal Stenosis > Diagnostic Workup.

[174] Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression with removal of the posterosuperior region underneath the slipping vertebral body for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07267-7

[175] Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03820-2

[179] Rockwood And Green S Fractures In Adults. Imaging of Cervical Spine Fractures and Dislocations > Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score.

[183] The immediate and long-term effects of exercise and patient education on physical, functional, and quality-of-life outcome measures after single-level lumbar microdiscectomy: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-70

[184] A novel transparent visual channel translates into enhanced surgical safety and efficiency for prolapsed lumbar disc herniation: a comparative clinical study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-026-06902-4

[185] Comparison of the French and CARDS classifications for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: reliability and validity. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2753-3

[186] Return to flight duty (RTFD) after posterior lumbar spine surgery for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis (LIS) in Chinese military pilots. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07175-w

[188] MRI underestimates lumbar spinal canal cross-sectional area compared to CT in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05653-y

[189] A novel vertebral trench technique (VTT) involving transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (TELF) for very highly up-migrated lumbar disc herniation above L5. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04548-3

[192] En bloc resection of the ligamentum flavum for bilateral decompression in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a 2-year follow-up study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05317-3

[208] The study of distance changes between lumbar bi-cortical pedicle screws and anterior large vessels in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04811-7

[210] Function after spinal treatment, exercise and rehabilitation (FASTER): improving the functional outcome of spinal surgery. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2010. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-17

[211] Incidental Durotomy After Posterior Lumbar Decompression Surgery Associated With Increased Risk for Venous Thromboembolism. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2023. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-22-00917

[214] The role of iatrogenic foraminal stenosis from lordotic correction in the development of C5 palsy after posterior laminectomy and fusion. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0297-2

[215] Return to work in patients with lumbar disc herniation undergoing fusion. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02682-1

[217] Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis: Evaluation and Management. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2003. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200305000-00004

[220] Tandem Spinal Stenosis: A Proposed Therapeutic Algorithm Based on a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2026. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00824

[225] The Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Lumbar Spine to Predict Low-Back Pain in Asymptomatic Subjects. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 2001. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200109000-00002

[226] Percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: is it worth it?. International Orthopaedics. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-1905-6

[228] Prevalence of modic changes in patients with low back pain and association with degenerative spinal findings: a retrospective MRI study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-09182-x

[230] Return to Play After Lumbar Spine Surgery. Clinics in Sports Medicine. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.csm.2016.05.006

[232] Predictors of Postoperative Complications After Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews. 2018. DOI: 10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-18-00085

[234] Lumbar Spine Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Conditions: Current Indications and Recommendations. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1995. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-199505000-00002

[235] Evaluation and Treatment of Spinal Injuries in the Patient with Polytrauma. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2004. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000130841.41657.d3

[237] Comparison of spinal anesthesia and local anesthesia in percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L5/S1 disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07898-w

[244] The use of epidural morphine to decrease postoperative pain in patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy.. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1984. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-198466010-00015

[248] Pedicle screw fixation and posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: effects on individual paraspinal muscles and lower back pain; a single-center, prospective study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-0927-9

[250] Incidence and Prediction of Postoperative Urinary Retention Following Lumbar Decompression. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.24.01030

[254] Performance-Based Outcomes After Nonoperative Treatment, Discectomy, and/or Fusion for a Lumbar Disc Herniation in National Hockey League Athletes. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513499229

[255] Objective evaluation of postoperative changes in real-life activity levels in the postoperative course of lumbar spinal surgery using wearable trackers. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-3102-2

[256] Long-Term Outcome of Lumbar Discectomy in Children and Adolescents Sixteen Years of Age or Younger. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery*. 1998. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199805000-00009

[257] Discitis (Closed Space Infection) Following Removal of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 1969. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-196951040-00009

[258] Durability of Lumbar Diskectomy: A Survivorship Analysis Based on Revision Surgery Rates. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00292

[259] Unilateral laminotomy with bilateral spinal canal decompression: systematic review of outcomes and complications. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-07033-1

[262] Impact of the number of previous lumbar operations on patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2023. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.105b4.bjj-2022-0704.r1

[263] Recurrent Lumbar Disk Herniation and Revision Surgery Rates After Single-Level Lumbar Microdiscectomy in the Military Population. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2024. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00879

[265] The Effect of Prolonged Postoperative Antibiotic Administration on the Rate of Infection in Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Surgery Requiring a Closed-Suction Drain. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.19.00009

[267] Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: Comparing Primary Versus Revision Cases. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2024. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-23-01031

[269] High Rate of Revision Surgery After Limited Decompression of Lumbar Facet Cysts. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2022. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-21-00258

[270] Anterior Versus Posterior Lumbar Fusion for Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2025. DOI: 10.5435/jaaos-d-25-00610

[271] The comparison between anterior and posterior approaches for removal of infected lumbar interbody cages and a proposal regarding the use of endoscope-assisted technique. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02535-x

[272] CASE REPORT: Vertebral Compression Fracture in a Fused and Instrumented Lumbar Segment. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2007. DOI: 10.1097/blo.0b013e3180315082

	CC Creative Commons licence
	BY Attribution — you must credit the source
	NC NonCommercial — not for commercial use