Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy: Satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery
Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy led to lower satisfactory recovery Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery · patients with lumbar stenosis Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy led to lower satisfactory recovery Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy; GRADE not reported. Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of posterior decompression techniques compared with conventional laminectomy for lumbar stenosis 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.