ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Interlaminar versus sublaminar lumbar decompression: a retrospective study on patient satisfaction as measured by PROMIS outcomes.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interlaminar and sublaminar decompressions are evolving alternatives to traditional lumbar laminectomy for managing symptomatic lumbar stenosis, but comparative patient-reported outcomes remain underexplored. This study evaluates differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and physical function (PF) scores between interlaminar and sublaminar lumbar decompression. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 74 patients (18-85 years) who underwent lumbar decompression without fusion at a Level I Trauma Center from January 2022 to March 2024. Patients were categorized by decompression type per operative reports. PROMIS pain and PF scores were collected preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Linear mixed-effects models assessed changes from baseline, adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), surgical levels, and operative time. Results: Sublaminar decompression demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in PROMIS PF scores compared to interlaminar decompression at 2 weeks (mean difference: +7.84), 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Similarly, PROMIS pain scores improved more in sublaminar patients at 2 weeks and 6 months, with interlaminar patients showing a smaller reduction [mean difference in pain improvement: -4.27; standard error (SE): 1.99; P=0.03]. Absolute PROMIS pain and PF scores, however, did not significantly differ between the two techniques (pain: P=0.93; PF: P=0.23). A significant interaction was observed between BMI and surgical type for pain outcomes: in sublaminar decompression, every 1 kg/m Conclusions: Sublaminar decompression was associated with greater improvements in PROMIS pain and PF scores compared to interlaminar decompression, although absolute postoperative scores were similar. BMI was a significant modifier of pain outcomes in sublaminar patients. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.