ArticleBioMed research international2019
Comparative Analysis between Three Different Lumbar Decompression Techniques (Microscopic, Tubular, and Endoscopic) in Lumbar Canal and Lateral Recess Stenosis: Preliminary Report.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of full-endoscopic and tubular-based microscopic decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial.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 · 2023Trial
- Tubular spinal micro decompression surgery with integrated 2D camera visualization: initial experience and feasibility in Tanzania.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- Tubular versus unilateral biportal endoscopy: MRI analysis after unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2025Article
- Endoscopic transfacet Decompression for Severe Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Technical Note, Illustrative Clinical Series, and Surgeon Survey Regarding Post-Decompression Instability.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Large-Channel Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy for Highly Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: Effectiveness and Safety.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Comparison of a novel hand-held retractor-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the wiltse approach and posterior TLIF: a one-year prospective controlled study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry.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 · 2023Article
- Article
- Unilateral microscopic approach for lumbar spinal stenosis decompression: a scoping review.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 · 2023Article
- Remodeling of Epidural Fluid Hematoma after Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Decompression: Comparative Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Full Endoscopic Ligamentum Flavum Sparing Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Recess Decompression: Surgical Technique and Clinical Results.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Spinal Surgery (BESS and UESS) Versus Microscopic Surgery in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2022Review
- Full Endoscopic Lumbar Stenosis Decompression: A Future Gold Standard in Managing Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Differential Agnostic Effect Size Analysis of Lumbar Stenosis Surgeries.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Remodeling Pattern of Spinal Canal after Full Endoscopic Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: One Year Repetitive MRI and Clinical Follow-Up Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Microendoscopic decompression of conjoined lumbosacral nerve roots.BMJ case reports · 2022Article
- Uniportal Endoscopic Interlaminar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of our study is to compare the results of spinal decompression using the full-endoscopic interlaminar technique, tubular retractor, and a conventional microsurgical laminotomy technique and evaluate the advantages and clinical feasibility of minimally invasive spinal (MIS) lumbar decompression technique in the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis.
methodsThe authors retrospectively reviewed clinical and radiological data from 270 patients who received microsurgical (group E: 72 patients), tubular (group T: 34 patients), or full-endoscopic decompression surgery (group E: 164 patients) for their lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis from June 2016 to August 2017. Clinical (VAS, ODI, and Mcnab criteria), radiologic (spinal canal diameter, segmental dynamic angle, and disc height), and surgical outcome parameters (CPK level, Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay) were evaluated pre- and postoperatively and compared among the three groups by means of statistical analysis. Failed cases and complications were reviewed in all groups.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 6.38 months. The Overall clinical success rate was 89.4%. All groups showed favorable clinical outcome. The clinical and radiologic results were similar in all groups. Regarding surgical outcome, group E showed longer operation time than group M and T (group E: 84.17 minutes/level, group M: 52.22 minutes/level, and group T: 66.12 minutes/level) (p<0.05). However, groups E and T showed minimal surgical invasiveness compared with group M. Groups E and T showed less immediate postoperative back pain (VAS) (group E: 3.13, group M: 4.28, group T: 3.54) (p<0.05), less increase of serum CPK enzyme (group E: 66.38 IU/L, group M: 120 IU/L, and group T: 137.5 IU/L) (p<0.05), and shorter hospital stay (group E: 2.12 days, group M: 4.85 days, and group T: 2.83 days) (p<0.05). The rates of complications and revisions were not significantly different among the three groups.
conclusionsMIS decompression technique is clinically feasible and safe to treat the lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis, and it has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, minimal postoperative back pain, and fast recovery of the patient compared to traditional open microscopic technique.
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.