Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28828180›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2017

Multi-level spine endoscopy: A review of available evidence and case report.

Scott D Middleton, Ralf Wagner, J N Alastair Gibson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Clinical outcomes of MED and iLESSYSExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Scott D MiddletonScott D. Middleton, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Royal Infirmary and University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ralf WagnerRalf Wagner, Ligamenta Spine Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
J N Alastair GibsonJ. N. Alastair Gibson, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Royal Infirmary and University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last ten years, there has been an exponential increase in endoscopic spinal surgery practice.With improvements in equipment quality and the availability of high definition camera systems, cervical endoscopic disc resection is now a viable alternative to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) or disc arthroplasty for the treatment of disc prolapse and low grade stenosis.Based on the current literature, there is now strong evidence to support the use of transforaminal endoscopic approaches for the treatment of thoracic disc prolapse.There is now level I evidence to show that outcomes following transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TED) are at least equivalent to those after open microdiscectomy, with an expected shorter operating time, lesser requirement for analgesia, reduced duration of post-operative disability, more rapid rehabilitation and lower costs of care. However, it should be recognised that there is a significant learning curve for TED.New endoscopic techniques with interlaminar approaches allow the decompression of central and lateral recess stenosis. Future developments will facilitate vision and access to the spine with 3D imaging and robotics at the forefront.We present a case report of whole spine endoscopic decompression to illustrate the potential of endoscopic surgery at all spinal levels. Cite this article:

Indexed as

cervical endoscopic surgerymicrodiscectomyspinal surgerythoracic discectomytransforaminal endoscopic discectomy

Identifiers

PMID28828180
PMCPMC5549181
OpenAlexW2734332587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.