ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020
Patient selection protocols for endoscopic transforaminal, interlaminar, and translaminar decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation Between Postoperative Changes in Imaging Parameters and Clinical Outcomes After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Article
- Advancements in Spinal Endoscopic Surgery: Comprehensive Techniques and Pathologies Addressed by Full Endoscopy Beyond Lumbar Disc Herniation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Challenges in Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Technological, and Patient-Specific Issues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- New Perspectives on Risk Assessment and Anticoagulation in Elective Spine Surgery Patients: The Impact of Ultra-Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Surgery Techniques on Patients with Cardiac Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Australian Spine Surgeon's Perspectives on Endoscopic Spine Surgery: An In-depth Analysis.Neurospine · 2023Article
- [Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Review
- Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of the Magna Radicular Artery Entry Foramen and Adamkiewicz System: Patient Selection for Open versus Full-Endoscopic Thoracic Spinal Decompression Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Interventional Therapy and Surgical Management of Lumbar Disc Herniation in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.Orthopedic reviews · 2023Article
- Correlation Between Postoperative Imaging Parameters and Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Foraminal and Lateral Recess Stenosis.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Documentation of Approach Trauma With Lumbar Endoscopic Interlaminar, Translaminar, Compared to Open Microsurgical Discectomy.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
- Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy via Transforaminal Approach Combined with Interlaminar Approach for L4/5 and L5/S1 Two-Level Disc Herniation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Dural Tears During Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Surgeon Skill, Training, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Feasibility of Using Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in the Prophylaxis of Dysesthesia in Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomies of the Lumbar Spine.Brain sciences · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe indications of different endoscopic and endoscopically assisted translaminar approaches for lumbar spinal stenosis are not well-defined, and validated protocols for the use of the transforaminal over the interlaminar approach are lacking.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study employing an image-based patient stratification protocol of stenosis location (type I-central canal, type II-lateral recess, type III-foraminal, type IV-extraforaminal) and clinical outcomes on 249 patients consisting of 137 (55%) men and 112 (45%) women with an average age of 56.03±16.8 years who underwent endoscopic surgery for symptomatic spinal stenosis from January 2013 to February 2019. The average follow-up of 38.27±27.9 months. The primary clinical outcome measures were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and modified Macnab criteria.
resultsThe frequency of stenosis configuration in decreasing order was as follows: type I-121/249; 48.6%, type III-104/249; 41.8%, type II-15/249; 6%, and type IV-9/249; 3.6%. The transforaminal approach (137/249; 55.0%) was used in most type II to IV lesions followed by the interlaminar approach (78/249; 31.3%), and the full endoscopic approach (12/249; 4.8%), and the endoscopically assisted translaminar approach (8/249; 3.2%) which was exclusively used for type I lesions. Macnab outcomes analysis showed Excellent in 47 patients (18.9%), Good in 178 (71.5%), Fair in 18 (7.2%) and Poor in 6 (2.4%), respectively. Paired two-tailed
conclusionsThis study suggests that in the hands of skilled endoscopic spines surgeon use of an image-based stenosis location protocol may contribute to obtaining
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.