ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018
Factors related to subjective satisfaction following microendoscopic foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Article
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Microendoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy versus Full-endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy for the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2023Article
- Outcome of Anterior and Posterior Endoscopic Procedures for Cervical Radiculopathy Due to Degenerative Disk Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Degree of satisfaction following full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Article
- Comparative study between full-endoscopic laminectomy and microendoscopic laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroendoscopic foraminotomy has been reported to be effective for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, using outcome measurement scores such as the neck disability index (NDI) and numerical rating scale (NRS). However, the scores for spine surgery do not always reflect the true subjective satisfaction of the patient. The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors related to subjective satisfaction following microendoscopic foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy.
methodsThe subjects consisted of consecutive patients who underwent microendoscopic foraminotomy for cervical radiculopathy. Patient background information and operative data were collected. The NDI, the NRS score for the neck, upper back, and arm, and the EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Postoperative subjective satisfaction was also assessed as a direct evaluation of satisfaction, and willingness to undergo the same operation if needed was assessed as an indirect evaluation.
resultsA total of 42 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 52.9 ± 11.8 years; 19.0% were female and 81.0% were male. The operation time for one level was 57.7 min and the estimated blood loss was minimal in most cases. All NDI, NRS, and EQ-5D scores improved significantly postoperatively. Univariate analyses revealed that the factors related to subjective satisfaction were younger age, non-smoking status, high preoperative NDI score, and low postoperative NRS score for the arm. Factors related to the willingness to undergo the same operation if needed were high preoperative NDI scores, high preoperative NRS scores for the arm, and low preoperative EQ-5D scores.
conclusionsFactors related to subjective satisfaction following microendoscopic foraminotomy include younger age, non-smoking status, high preoperative NDI score, high preoperative NRS score for the arm, low preoperative EQ-5D score, and a low postoperative NRS score for the arm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.