Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852061›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2019

Comparison of the effectiveness and outcome of microendoscopic and open discectomy in patients suffering from lumbar disc herniation.

Ram Ishwar Yadav, Ling Long, Cao Yanming

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ram Ishwar YadavThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Department of Orthopaedics, Guangzhou, China.
Ling Long
Cao Yanming
Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of our study is to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of MED vs OLD for lumbar disc herniation.

objectivesTo identify the functional outcomes in terms of ODI score, VAS score complications in terms of intraoperative blood loss, use of general anesthesia, and morbidity in terms of total hospital stay between MED and OLD.

methodsIn our randomized prospective study we analyzed 60 patients with clinical signs and symptoms with 2 weeks of failed conservative treatment plus MRI or CT scan findings of lumbar disc herniation who underwent MED and OLD. The study was undertaken from November 2017 to January 2019 at Guangzhou Medical University of Second Affiliated Hospital, department of orthopedic surgery in spinal Unit, Guangzhou, China. Patients were divided into 2 groups i.e. who underwent MED group and the OLD group then we compared the preoperative and postoperative ODI and VAS score, duration of total hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, and operation time.

resultsWe evaluated 60 patients. Among them, 30 underwent MED (15 female and 15 male) and 30 underwent OLD 14 male 16 female. Surgical and anesthesia time was significantly shorter, blood loss and hospital stay were significantly reduced in patients having MED than OLD (<0.005). The improvement in the ODI in both groups was clinically significant and statistically (P < .005) at postoperative 1st day (with greater improvement in the MED group), at 6 weeks (P > .005), month 6 (>0.005) statistically no significant. The clinical improvement was similar in both groups. VAS and ODI scores improved significantly postoperatively in both groups. However, the MED group was superior to the OLD group with less time in bed, shorter operation time, less blood loss which is clinically and statistically significant (P < .05).

conclusionsThe standard surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation has been open discectomy but there has been a trend towards minimally invasive procedures. MED for lumbar spine disc herniation is a well-known but developing field, which is increasingly spreading in the last few years. The success rate of MED is about approximately 90%. Both methods are equally effective in relieving radicular pain. MED was superior in terms of total hospital stay, morbidity, and earlier return to work and anesthetic exposure, blood loss, intra-op time comparing to OLD. MED is a safe and effective alternative to conventional OLD for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiskectomyEndoscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID31852061
PMCPMC6984752
OpenAlexW2995168100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.