SynthesisMedicine2018
Tubular microscopes discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disk herniation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of outcomes between tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Complication rates of different discectomy techniques for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and 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 · 2020Pooled it
- 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
- Advanced Visualization in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Ergonomics, Economics, and Evolution of Camera-Based Tubes and Retractors.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Spin in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques and Standard Microdiscectomies for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- A novel classification based on magnetic resonance imaging for individualized surgical strategies of lumbar disc herniation.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Article
- Innovative design of minimal invasive biodegradable poly(glycerol-dodecanoate) nucleus pulposus scaffold with function regeneration.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Intradiscal Gelified Ethanol Nucleolysis versus Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation Radiculopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Characteristics of relief and residual low back pain after discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation: analysis using a detailed visual analog scale.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Observational
- Intervertebral Disk Degeneration: The Microenvironment and Tissue Engineering Strategies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Unilateral discectomy: outcomes, postoperative pain, complications.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
- Current concepts for lumbar disc herniation.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- [The trend towards full-endoscopic decompression : Current possibilities and limitations in disc herniation and spinal stenosis].Der Orthopade · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of tubular microscopes discectomy (TMD) was supposed to have similar or better results than conventional microdiscectomy (CMD). However, this conclusion had not been verified by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficiency, safety, and clinical outcome of these 2 surgical procedures for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central databases were searched for studies which compared the results of TMD and CMD for the treatment of LDH up to July 2017. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. A standardized electronic form of 17 predefined criteria from the Consort statement was used for the quality assessment.
resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 2 retrospective studies were included in this review, including 804 patients. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in operative time (P = .38), blood loss (P = .14), the length of hospital stay (P = .47), the rate of intraoperative complications (P = .79), postoperative complications (P = .16), dural tear (P = .87), the reoperation (P = .20), the short-term back visual analog scale (VAS) scores (P = .76), the long-term back VAS scores (P = .64), the short-term leg VAS scores (P = .09), the long-term leg VAS scores (P = .35), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores (P = .41).
conclusionThe results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that TMD and CMD are both safe and effective surgical procedures which can be recommended for treating LDH. Additionally, the conclusion should be cautiously treated, because it was reached in the context of limited amount of studies and relatively small sample size. Therefore, future studies with good design and more large samples are required to validate this conclusion.
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.