Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 662

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Conservative or Surgical Management?: A Prospective 10-Year Study

Amundsen, Tom, Weber, Henrik, Nordal, Helge J., Magnaes, Bjørn, Abdelnoor, Michael, Lilleås, Finn·2000·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A cohort of 100 patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, characterized in a previous article, were given surgical or conservative treatment and followed for 10 years. OBJECTIVES: To identify the short- and long-term results after surgical and conservative treatment, and to determine whether clinical or radiologic predictors for the treatment result can be defined. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical decompression has been considered the rational treatment. However, clinical experience indicates that many patients do well with conservative treatment. METHODS: In this study, 19 patients with severe symptoms were selected for surgical treatment and 50 patients with moderate symptoms for conservative treatment, whereas 31 patients were randomized between the conservative (n = 18) and surgical (n = 13) treatment groups. Pain was decisive for the choice of treatment group. All patients were observed for 10 years by clinical evaluation and questionnaires. The results, evaluated by patient and physician, were rated as excellent, fair, unchanged, or worse. RESULTS: After a period of 3 months, relief of pain had occurred in most patients. Some had relief earlier, whereas for others it took 1 year. After a period of 4 years, excellent or fair results were found in half of the patients selected for conservative treatment, and in four fifths of the patients selected for surgery. Patients with an unsatisfactory result from conservative treatment were offered delayed surgery after 3 to 27 months (median, 3.5 months). The treatment result of delayed surgery was essentially similar to that of the initial group. The treatment result for the patients randomized for surgical treatment was considerably better than for the patients randomized for conservative treatment. Clinically significant deterioration of symptoms during the final 6 years of the follow-up period was not observed. Patients with multilevel afflictions, surgically treated or not, did not have a poorer outcome than those with single-level afflictions. Clinical or radiologic predictors for the final outcome were not found. There were no dropouts, except for 14 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome was most favorable for surgical treatment. However, an initial conservative approach seems advisable for many patients because those with an unsatisfactory result can be treated surgically later with a good outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 662

Metadata

Authors
Amundsen, T., Weber, H., Nordal, H. J., Magnaes, B., Abdelnoor, M., & Lilleås, F.
Venue
Spine
Published
2000-06
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1424-1436
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060091110
Cited by
662
References
0
FWCI
7.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Conservative or Surgical Management?: A Prospective 10-Year Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016
The paper
Amundsen, T., Weber, H., Nordal, H. J., Magnaes, B., Abdelnoor, M., & Lilleås, F. (2000). Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Conservative or Surgical Management?: A Prospective 10-Year Study. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006010-00016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.