Table 3. Comparative Studies According to Surgical Approach for Treatment.

Study	Group (number)	Conclusion (favored procedure)	Rationale of conclusion
Pieters et al. (2019)17)	Decompression only (907), decompression & fusion (8,699)	Decompression	Fewer adverse events
			Low risk of unplanned return to surgery
Ikuta et al. (2008)18)	Microendoscopic posterior decompression (37)	Microendoscopic posterior decompression	No need of secondary fusion
Chen et al. (2018)19)	Decompression alone (7,878), decompression with fusion (70,116)	Decompression	Shorter operation time
			Less intraoperative blood loss
			Shorter hospital day
Ghogawala et al.	Laminectomy alone (35), laminectomy plus fusion (31)	Laminectomy plus fusion	Clinically meaningful improvement in overall physical health-related quality of life
Rampersaud et al. (2014)21)	Decompression alone (46), decompression with fusion (113)	Both of them	No significant difference in SF-36, minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit
Austevoll et al. (2017)22)	Decompression alone (260), decompression with fusion (260)	Both of them	ODI was not significantly different.
Hayashi et al. (2018)23)	Microendoscopic laminectomy (30), posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory (20)	Both of them	No significant difference in clinical outcomes, complications, reoperation rates
Yagi et al. (2018)24)	Decompression alone (59), decompression with fusion (40)	Both of them	Both methods were cost-effective.

SF-36: 36-item short form health survey, ODI: Oswestry disability index.