Midline-preserving vs. midline-removing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: national registry study based on the Finnish spine registry (FinSpine)
Based on a nationwide registry, the majority of patients improved in the primary outcomes and were satisfied with the operative treatment. Our study suggests that concerning central stenosis both techniques lead to good results, but midline-preserving techniques may lead to new operations more often than after midline-removing decompression in 5 years. Alternatively, in case of lateral recess stenosis, a question is raised whether surgery by midline-preserving decompression might benefit patients in terms of disability and leg pain.
Authors
- Ida Rantalaiho (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6203-1900)
- Katri Pernaa (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8325-0379)
- Inari Laaksonen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6272-4010)
- Henri Salo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6374-9444)
- Joel Kostensalo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9883-1256)
- Noora Paturi
Institutions
- University of Turku (FI)
- Turku University of Applied Sciences (FI)
- Turku University Hospital (FI)
- Natural Resources Institute Finland (FI)
- Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI)
- Päijät-Hämeen Keskussairaala (FI)
Publication Details
- Journal
- European Spine Journal
- Published
- 2025-08-18
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09271-4
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.94
Funders
- Turun Yliopisto