ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniations.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of intradiscal injection with condoliase versus microendoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of interlaminar endoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniation by Destandau's technique.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Review: Discogenic Back Pain: Update on Treatment.Orthopedic reviews · 2023Article
- Complications associated with lumbar discectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Review
- Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy with general versus local anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Review
- Case series of unilateral biportal endoscopic-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Value of Lumbar MRI Parameters in the Evaluation of Postoperative Curative Effect on Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation and Analysis of Risk Factors.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- A randomized study protocol of microendoscopic versus open discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Medicine · 2020Article
- Full-endoscopic transpedicular discectomy (FETD) for lumbar herniations: Case report and review of the literature.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLumbar disc herniation is one of the main causes of discogenic low back pain and reported to affect 60%-80% of people during their lifetime. The two main surgical modalities for intervertebral disc surgery are standard open discectomy and minimally invasive discectomy which include percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy (MED). We report our experience with the same technique of MED to evaluate the efficacy of MED for lumbar disc pathology. AIMS AND
objectivesThe aims and objectives were to study the efficacy, advantages, and associated limitations and complications of MED in lumbar disc herniations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was carried out on 300 patients who had single-level herniated disc. The procedure was done by Microscopic Endoscopic Tubular Retraction System. Preoperative assessment of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and modified Suezawa and Schreiber (MSS) clinical scoring system was documented 1 day prior to surgery. Postoperative results were determined to be excellent, good, fair, or poor according to MacNab criteria and also evaluated by MSS clinical scoring system on postoperative day 7 and after 6 months.
resultsA total of 187 patients were males and 113 patients were females and a majority of patients were in the age group of 31-40 years. A total of 192 patients had disc herniations at L4-L5 level. The mean operative time was 82 min and the mean hospital stay was 5.3 days. Eighteen cases (6%) developed postoperative complications including discitis, dysesthesia, recurrent prolapsed intervertebral disc, residual disc, dural tear, and nerve root injury. Mean preoperative VAS score was 8.7 and the mean postoperative VAS scores at postoperative day 7 and at 6 months were 2.25 and 1.12, respectively. The mean preoperative MSS score was 3.27 and the MSS scores at postoperative day 7 and at 6 months were 7.42 and 8.2, respectively. The overall successful outcome of the endoscopic discectomy after 6-month follow-up on the basis of VAS improvement percentage was 87.6%, MSS scoring percentage was 91.6%, and MacNab scoring percentage was 92.67%.
conclusionMED is a safe and effective technique. It offers decreased blood loss, shorter operative time, shorter in-hospital stay, decreased need for pain medication, decreased rate of infection, and a shorter return to work time. Limitations of this technique include a learning curve which is related to surgery time, complications, conversion to open procedures, and recurrent disc herniation.
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.