ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
What were the advantages of microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation comparing with open discectomy: a meta-analysis?
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of intradiscal injection with condoliase versus microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy, Chemonucleolysis, Microdiscectomy, and Microendoscopic Discectomy for Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation: One-year Follow-up Clinical Results and Disc Degeneration.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2024Article
- Comparison of surgical invasiveness between micro-endoscopic discectomy/microscopic discectomy and conventional hemilaminectomy in dogs.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of lumbar diseases specific test in patients who undergo endoscopy-assisted tubular surgery with lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus: an analysis using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ).European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) and open discectomy (OD) for lubmar disc herniation (LDH). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MED with OD for LDH were searched comprehensively in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Relevant studies retrieved, data extracted and the quality of included studies were independently performed by two authors. RevMan software (Version 5.2.0) was used to analyse and synthesis relevant data of the included studies. Nine RCTs involving 774 patients were obtained and reported the relevant outcome measures. Compared with OD group, there were significant difference in the general operation indicators including operation time, blood loss, site of incision, hospital stay and time of return to work, biochemical indexes including C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) in MED group. Meanwhile, there were no difference in effective rate, complication including total complications, dural leaks occurred and recurrence of the disc herniation, compared MED group with OD group. MED had slighter trauma, milder blood loss and shorter healing time than OD. The results demonstrated MED has great efficacy and safety comparable to OD. So we think that MED can be used routinely for LDH patients, especially the patients of old and intolerable major surgery. Meanwhile, it is necessary for surgeon to master indication and contraindication of MED and improve the operative technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26770340PMC4694240W2413593056What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.