To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

No Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Conventional Laminectomy and BDUL for Treatment of LSS

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
October 2019

No Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Conventional Laminectomy and BDUL for Treatment of LSS

Vol: 8| Issue: 10| Number:5| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Randomized Trial
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

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

J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Aug 8;14(1):252.

Contributing Authors:
S Ko T Oh

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Fifty-four patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis were randomized to receive a bilateral decompression via unilateral laminectomy (BDUL) or a conventional laminectomy (CL). Outcomes of interest included lower back pain, leg pain and buttock pain as measured on an 11pt Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and t...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue