ArticleAsian spine journal2019
Functional Outcome after Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy by Destandau's Technique: A Prospective Study of 614 Patients.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Clinical evaluation of interlaminar endoscopic discectomy in lumbar disc herniation by Destandau's technique.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A French National Survey on Practices, Motivations, and Challenges.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Evolution, Current Trends, and Latest Advances of Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Differential Agnostic Effect Size Analysis of Lumbar Stenosis Surgeries.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- A Differential Clinical Benefit Examination of Full Lumbar Endoscopy vs Interspinous Process Spacers in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis: An Effect Size Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design: Prospective study. Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of the lumbar discectomy procedure using the Destandau Endospine System by assessing the functional outcome and complication rate in 614 patients. Overview of Literature: Endoscopic Spine Surgery (Endospine) using Destandau's technique is an established treatment method of lumbar disk herniation; it was introduced in 1993 and is gaining prominence for its small skin incision and minimal tissue dissection with excellent visualization. Methods: Of 840 patients, we selected 614 patients, based on the strict inclusion criteria, who underwent endoscopic lumbar discectomy (ELD) between August 2008 and November 2015. The technique comprised localization of the symptomatic level followed by insertion of an endospine system device through a 15-20-mm skin and fascial incision to perform a discectomy. We evaluated results by Macnab's criteria, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score after a minimum follow-up of 12 months and maximum up to 54 months. Results: Based on the modified Macnab's criteria, 479 patients (78.01%) exhibited excellent, 110 (17.9%) good, 19 (3.09%) fair, and 6 (0.97%) poor results. The average ODI score was improved from 64 (range, 44-86; standard deviation [SD]=9.2) to 14 (range, 2-31; SD=4.4), and the average VAS score from 7.8 (range, 6-10; SD=0.9) to 2 (range, 0-7; SD=1.2) in a year. On 1-year follow-up, 589 patients (95.9%) were completely pain-free and satisfied with the procedure. Conclusions: ELD provides a safe, effective, and minimal access corridor for lumbar discectomy. The technique also allows early postoperative mobilization and faster return-to-work.
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.