High Rate of Studies with Level 1 and 2 Evidence among the 100 Most Cited Articles in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Abstract Background To date, no study has used bibliometric analysis to review the most influential articles in lumbar spinal stenosis. The objective of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics and the level of evidence of the 100 most cited articles on lumbar spinal stenosis Methods The Thomson Reuters Web of Science was accessed to find the 100 most cited articles on lumbar spinal stenosis. For each article, we recorded the number and density of citations, authors, country, journals and years, department, level of evidence, type of study, and if it was part of any multicenter studies. Results Until January 2017, the 100 most cited articles accumulated 11,136 citations (average: 259.05/y), ranging individually between 442 and 50 (average: 111.36). The first reference was published in 1974 in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Therapeutic studies (n = 40), the 1990s (n = 46), United States as country of origin (n = 51), Harvard University as institution (n = 16), Katz JN as author (n = 10), and Spine as journal (n = 48) have the hegemony. Many were multicenter (n = 42) and using level 2 evidence (n = 49). There is an inverse relationship between citation index and long-standing studies, maintenance of those most cited, and a temporary advance toward better levels of evidence. Conclusion This bibliometric analysis reveals a good level of evidence in the published clinical series and includes 100 articles useful for the approach of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Download Full-text

Comments on “The 100 Most Cited Articles on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Bibliometric Analysis.” Global Spine J by Yin M et al

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/21925682211034775 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 183-183

Author(s):

Yunzhong Cheng ◽

Lijin Zhou ◽

Yong Hai

Keyword(s):

Bibliometric Analysis ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Download Full-text

The 100 Most Cited Articles on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Bibliometric Analysis

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568220952074 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 219256822095207

Author(s):

Mengchen Yin ◽

Chongqing Xu ◽

Wen Mo

Keyword(s):

Bibliometric Analysis ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Citation Count ◽

The United States ◽

Bibliometric Method ◽

Evaluation Standard ◽

Short Period ◽

High Level ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Study Design: Bibliometric analysis. Objective: With the increasing literature of spine surgery, some pioneering research studies have had a significant impact on the field of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The objective of the authors was to identify and analyze the most frequently cited 100 articles in this field. Methods: Web of Science was searched to identify 100 top-cited articles related to LSS from 2000 to 2019. Articles on the final list were filtered based on their titles and abstracts. The following information were recorded and analyzed with bibliometric method: article title, first author, year of publication, journal of publication, total number of citations, country, institution, and study topic. Results: The citation count for final articles on the list ranged from 71 to 2162, with a mean number of 207.7. The journal Spine contributed the maximum number of articles (37), followed by European Spine Journal (9) and Pain Physician (8). There were collectively 80 first authors contributing to articles on the final list. Twelve authors were represented multiple times in the top 100 articles. The most prolific years were 2008 and 2009, each had 11 articles published. With regard to country and region of origin, most articles were from the United States (58). The most cited article was published in Spine in 2000 by Fairbank and Pynsent, who discussed the role of the Oswestry Disability Index as an evaluation standard in spinal disorders, including LSS. Conclusion: The current study analyzed the 100 most cited articles on LSS. It no doubt developed a useful resource with detailed information for many, particularly orthopedic and neurosurgery physicians who want to assimilate research focus and advance of LSS within a relatively short period. Researchers may benefit from emphasis on citation count while citing and evaluating articles and realize the deficiencies when high-level articles appear.

Download Full-text

Percutaneous Pedicle-Lengthening Osteotomy in Minimal Invasive Spinal Surgery to Treat Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Single-Center Preliminary Experience

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A Central European Neurosurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1641148 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 79 (05) ◽

pp. 365-371

Author(s):

Luigi Basile ◽

Carlo Gulì ◽

Aurelia Banco ◽

Giovanna Giordano ◽

Antonella Giugno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Spinal Canal ◽

Invasive Procedure ◽

High Risk Population ◽

Minimally Invasive Procedure ◽

Clinical Series ◽

Lengthening Osteotomy ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a narrowing of the spinal canal due to spinal degeneration, and its main clinical symptom is neurogenic claudication. Surgical treatment is pursued for patients who do not improve with conservative care. Patients with symptomatic LSS who also have significant medical comorbidities, although clearly in need of intervention, are unattractive candidates for traditional open lumbar decompressive procedures. Thus it is important to explore minimally invasive surgical techniques to treat select patients with LSS. Methods This retrospective case series evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a new minimally invasive procedure to treat LSS: pedicle-lengthening osteotomy using the ALTUM system ((Innovative Surgical Designs, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, United States). Peri- and postoperative demographic and radiographic data were collected from a clinical series of seven patients with moderate LSS who were > 60 years of age. Clinical outcome was evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the spinal canal area on computed tomography scans. Results Twelve months after the procedure, scoring revealed a median improvement of 3.7 on the VAS for the back and 6.3 on the VAS for the leg, compared with the preoperative baseline (p < 0.05). The postoperative central area of the lumbar canal was significantly increased, by 0.39 cm2; the right and left neural foramina were enlarged by 0.29 cm2 and 0.47 cm2, respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusions In this preliminary study, the ALTUM system showed a good clinical and radiologic outcome 1 year after surgery. In an older or high-risk population, a short minimally invasive procedure may be beneficial for treating LSS.

Download Full-text

Research Tendency in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis over the Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis

World Neurosurgery ◽

10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.086 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 149 ◽

pp. e71-e84

Author(s):

Ömer Faruk Kiliçaslan ◽

Vugar Nabi ◽

Fatma Yardibi ◽

Mehmet Ali Tokgöz ◽

Özkan Köse

Keyword(s):

Bibliometric Analysis ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

The Past ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional and biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (ENDO-B trial): a protocol for a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicenter trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-04959-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hyun-Jin Park ◽

Sang-Min Park ◽

Kwang-Sup Song ◽

Ho-Joong Kim ◽

Si-Young Park ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Small Sample ◽

Endoscopic Technique ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Research Information ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Decompressive Laminectomy ◽

Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Background Recent studies on biportal endoscopic spine surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis have reported good clinical results. However, these studies have been limited by the small sample sizes and use of a retrospective study design. Therefore, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy with those of conventional decompressive laminectomy in a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Methods This study will include 120 patients (60 per group, aged 20–80 years) with 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal stenosis, who will be recruited from six hospitals. The study will be conducted from July 2021 to December 2024. The primary outcome (Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months after surgery) will be evaluated through a modified intention-to-treat method. The secondary outcomes will include the following: visual analog scale score for low back and lower extremity radiating pain, EuroQol 5-dimensions score, surgery satisfaction, walking time, postoperative return to daily life period, postoperative surgical scars, and some surgery-related variables. Radiographic outcomes will be analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. All outcomes will be evaluated before the surgery and at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines for reporting of clinical trial protocols. Discussion It is hypothesized that the efficacy and safety of biportal endoscopic and conventional decompressive laminectomy will be comparable in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The results of this trial will provide a high level of evidence for the efficacy and safety of the biportal endoscopic technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and facilitate the development of clinical practice guidelines. Furthermore, the results of this study may indicate the feasibility of the biportal endoscopic technique for other types of spinal surgery. Trial registration The ENDO-B trial is registered at Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS, cris.nih.go.kr) (KCT0006057; April 52,021).

Download Full-text