Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30927349›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Micro-Endoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Panfeng Yu, Hua Qiang, Jianwei Zhou, Peng Huang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Panfeng YuDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (mainland).
Hua QiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (mainland).
Jianwei ZhouDepartment of Orthopedics, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (mainland).
Peng HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China (mainland).
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Tongren Hospital · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and micro-endoscopic discectomy (MED) are alternative minimally invasive, widely performed procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This study compared the clinical outcomes of these 2 surgical techniques in treating LDH. MATERIAL AND METHODS A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to identify all relevant studies comparing PTED and MED in treating LDH. RESULTS Eight comparative studies assessing a total of 805 patients were included for the final analysis. The results indicated that PTED needs a shorter incision [-1.02 (-1.21 to -0.83), p<0.001], less time in bed [-2.14 (-3.34 to -0.94), p<0.001], and shorter hospital stay [-1.92 (-2.90 to -0.94), p<0.001], whereas MED is superior regarding intraoperative fluoroscopy [7.47 (2.78 to 12.17), p=0.002] and total cost [0.69 (0.38 to 1.00), p<0.001]. No significant differences were found on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications. Significant lower back pain was found in the PTED group at 1 week postoperatively [-0.52 (-0.95 to -0.10), p=0.02] and 1 year postoperatively or the last follow-up [-0.41 (-0.76 to -0.06), p=0.02]; significant lower leg pain was also detected at 1 week postoperatively [-0.52 (-0.75 to -0.30), p<0.001]. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was significant better at 1 week postoperatively in the PTED group [-4.41 (-7.03 to -1.79), p=0.001]. No significant differences were detected at other time points regarding pain score and ODI. CONCLUSIONS Both PTED and MED are safe and effective techniques for treating LDH. However, taking all clinical outcomes together, PTED might be a preferable treatment modality for LDH.

Indexed as

AdultDiskectomyDiskectomy, PercutaneousEndoscopyFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePain MeasurementPostoperative PeriodRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30927349
PMCPMC6452773
OpenAlexW2928050400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.