Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy

Thomé, Claudius, Zevgaridis, Dimitris, Leheta, Olaf, Bäzner, Hansjörg, Pöckler-Schöniger, Christiane, Wöhrle, Johannes, Schmiedek, Peter·2005·Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Abstract

Object: Recently, limited decompression procedures have been proposed in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. The authors undertook a prospective study to compare the safety and outcome of unilateral and bilateral laminotomy with laminectomy. Methods: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with 207 levels of lumbar stenosis without herniated discs or instability were randomized to three treatment groups (bilateral laminotomy [Group 1], unilateral laminotomy [Group 2], and laminectomy [Group 3]). Perioperative parameters and complications were documented. Symptoms and scores, such as visual analog scale (VAS), Roland—Morris Scale, Short Form—36 (SF-36), and patient satisfaction were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Adequate decompression was achieved in all patients. The overall complication rate was lowest in patients who had undergone bilateral laminotomy (Group 1). The minimum follow up of 12 months was obtained in 94% of patients. Residual pain was lowest in Group 1 (VAS score 2.3 ± 2.4 and 4 ± 1 in Group 3; p < 0.05 and 3.6 ± 2.7 in Group 2; p < 0.05). The Roland—Morris Scale score improved from 17 ± 4.3 before surgery to 8.1 ± 7, 8.5 ± 7.3, and 10.9 ± 7.5 (Groups 1–3, respectively; p < 0.001 compared with preoperative) corresponding to a dramatic increase in walking distance. Examination of SF-36 scores demonstrated marked improvement, most pronounced in Group 1. The number of repeated operations did not differ among groups. Patient satisfaction was significantly superior in Group 1, with 3, 27, and 26% of patients unsatisfied (in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Bilateral and unilateral laminotomy allowed adequate and safe decompression of lumbar stenosis, resulted in a highly significant reduction of symptoms and disability, and improved health-related quality of life. Outcome after unilateral laminotomy was comparable with that after laminectomy. In most outcome parameters, bilateral laminotomy was associated with a significant benefit and thus constitutes a promising treatment alternative.

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 · 10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 51 references

Metadata

Authors
Thomé, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bäzner, H., Pöckler-Schöniger, C., Wöhrle, J., & Schmiedek, P.
Venue
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
Published
2005-08
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
129-141
ISSN
  • 1547-5646 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5654
OpenAlex
W2125548935
Cited by
371
References
51
FWCI
2.84
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: Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129
The paper
Thomé, C., Zevgaridis, D., Leheta, O., Bäzner, H., Pöckler-Schöniger, C., Wöhrle, J., & Schmiedek, P. (2005). Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0129

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.