[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-429446-105":59,"doc-detail-429446-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","minimally-invasive-tubular-decompression-versus-traditional-open-surgery-for-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis","Minimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","","Minimally invasive (MI) tubular decompression aims to lessen soft-tissue trauma compared with open laminectomy in adults with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies from 2015 to April 2025 pooled 2,860 patients across 10 cohorts. Random-effects analyses showed fewer overall complications, fewer surgical-site infections, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital length of stay, while reoperation, operative time, dural tears, and PROMs were not significantly different. Results support potential perioperative and resource benefits with caution due to heterogeneity and retrospective dominance.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/minimally-invasive-tubular-decompression-versus-traditional-open-surgery-for-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/429446/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/minimally-invasive-tubular-decompression-versus-traditional-open-surgery-for-lumbar-spinal-stenosis-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/429446.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Hazel","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the main comparison in this systematic review and meta-analysis?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It compares minimally invasive tubular decompression with traditional open laminectomy for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Which outcomes favored MI tubular decompression?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"MI tubular surgery was associated with fewer overall complications, fewer surgical-site infections, lower estimated blood loss, and shorter hospital length of stay.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Were patient-reported outcomes and certain surgical complications different between groups?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Reoperation, operative time, dural tears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) did not differ significantly between MI tubular decompression and open surgery.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},429446,1791033076,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":41,"preview_page_count":4},137441390410,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000252f4ab5702993?_k=1776741390130283984","[www. nature.com/scientificreports](www. nature.com/scientificreports)  \nOPEN  \nMinimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis  \nAhmet Kartal􀀍, Noel F. Manalil, Mousa K. Hamad, Shahier Paracha, Anthony Robayo, Evan Wang, Ibrahim Hussain & Roger Härtl  \nMinimally invasive (MI) tubular decompression seeks to reduce soft-tissue trauma compared with open laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta‑analysis of comparative studies (2015–April 2025) identified in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Adults with symptomatic degenerative LSS undergoing MI tubular decompression or open laminectomy were included. Evaluated outcomes included surgical parameters (e.g., overall complications; dural tears, surgical site infections, reoperation), perioperative and postoperative complications, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and hospital length of stay (LOS) . Heterogeneity was measured using I2. Random‑effects models were primary; PROMs were also analyzed in a common‑effect sensitivity analysis. Nine studies involving ten cohorts and a total of 2,860 patients were analyzed from 2,853 records. Random‑effects models pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD); PROMs were additionally examined with a common‑effect model as a sensitivity analysis. MI tubular surgery was associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21–0.86), fewer surgical site infections (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.69), lower EBL (MD − 46.65 mL, 95% CI − 80.89 to − 12.41), and shorter LOS (MD − 1.39 days, 95% CI − 1.99 to − 0.79) . Reoperation, operative time, dural tears, and PROMs did not differ significantly. Overall, our results suggest that MI tubular‑assisted decompression may offer advantages over open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. It was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and resource utilization – including lower overall complication rates, fewer surgical‑site infections, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays – while achieving similar patient-reported outcomes. Given between-study heterogeneity and the predominance of retrospective cohorts, these results should be interpreted with appropriate caution; nevertheless, when feasible and in appropriately selected patients and settings, tubular-assisted decompression may be considered a preferable option.  \nKeywords Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), Tubular decompression, Open laminectomy, Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), Systematic review, Meta-analysis  \nAbbreviations  \nBMI CENTRAL CI  \nEBL GRADE IRB  \nLOS  \nLSS  \nMD  \nBody mass index  \nCochrane central register of controlled trials Confidence Interval  \nEstimated blood loss  \nGrading of recommendations assessment development and evaluation Institutional review board  \nLength of stay Lumbar spinal stenosis Mean difference  \nDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Och Spine at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 East 68th Street, Box 99, New York, NY 10065, USA. 􀀍 email: [ahk4006@med.cornell.edu](ahk4006@med.cornell.edu)  \n[www. nature.com/scientificreports/](www. nature.com/scientificreports/)  \nMI  \nMITD MITDSmTLIF NOS NSAIDs ODI  \nOR PICOs PRISMA  \nPROMs SD  \nULBD  \nVAS VAS-B  \nVAS-L  \nMinimally invasive  \nMinimally invasive tubular decompression  \nMinimally invasive tubular discectomy  \nMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Newcastle-ottawa scale  \nNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs Oswestry disability index  \nOdds ratio  \nPopulation intervention comparison outcomes and study design Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses Patient-reported outcome measures  \nStandard deviation  \nUnilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression Visual analog scale  \nVisual analog scale for back pain  \nVisual analog scale for leg pain  \nLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is characterized by narrowing of the central spinal canal","cbCaiqmIsE324KB0","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqmIsE324KB0","pdf",2919403,12,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction and Background\n# Minimally Invasive Tubular Decompression vs Open Laminectomy","[{\"question\":\"What is the main comparison in this systematic review and meta-analysis?\",\"answer\":\"It compares minimally invasive tubular decompression with traditional open laminectomy for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.\"},{\"question\":\"Which outcomes favored MI tubular decompression?\",\"answer\":\"MI tubular surgery was associated with fewer overall complications, fewer surgical-site infections, lower estimated blood loss, and shorter hospital length of stay.\"},{\"question\":\"Were patient-reported outcomes and certain surgical complications different between groups?\",\"answer\":\"Reoperation, operative time, dural tears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) did not differ significantly between MI tubular decompression and open surgery.\"}]","Minimally invasive tubular decompression versus traditional open surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis | PDF",1790650109]