Less invasive back surgery may be as effective as major revision for spinal stenosis

NCT ID NCT07661199

Not yet recruiting Disease control Sponsor: Charite University, Berlin, Germany Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026

Summary

This trial compares two surgical approaches for people who develop spinal stenosis near a previous lumbar fusion. One group receives a smaller surgery (microdecompression alone), while the other gets the standard larger surgery (decompression plus extending the fusion). The study measures disability, pain, complications, and reoperation rates over two years to see if the less invasive option works just as well.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance: Microsurgical decompression with or without fusion extension
What this could lead to: If microdecompression alone works as well as the more invasive surgery, patients could avoid a larger operation with fewer risks and faster recovery.
What could go wrong: This is a single trial, and results may not apply to all patients. The less invasive surgery might lead to more reoperations or worse long-term outcomes.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for ADJACENT SEGMENT DISEASE are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

lumbar spinal stenosis spinal stenosis

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

ADJACENT SEGMENT DISEASE LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS

Contacts and locations

Locations

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Berlin, State of Berlin, 10117, Germany

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.