ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020
A comparison study of posterior cervical percutaneous endoscopic ventral bony decompression and simple dorsal decompression treatment in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy caused by cervical foraminal and/or lateral spinal stenosis: a clinical retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Bone tunnel approach for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with uncovertebral osteophytes.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 · 2026Article
- Anatomical Importance Between Neural Structure and Bony Landmark in Neuroventral Decompression for Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives in Full Endoscopic Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Channel-assisted cervical key hole technology combined with ultrasonic bone osteotome versus posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical foraminotomy: a clinical retrospective study.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Surgical Technique of Central and Over-the-Top Full-Endoscopic Decompression of the Cervical Spine: A Technical Note.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Surgeon reported practice patterns related to full endoscopic cervical decompression procedures.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
- Ultrasonic Osteotome Assisted Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy Due to Osseous Foraminal Stenosis.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023Article
- Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic foraminotomy and diskectomy combined with piezosurgery for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with neuropathic radicular pain.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Full Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in Management of Foraminal Disc Herniation and Foraminal Stenosis.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2022Article
- Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Combined with Foraminotomy Assisted by High-Definition 3-Dimensional Exoscope in the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy Secondary to Bony Foraminal Stenosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- Successful treatment of continuous ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in the lumbar spine using percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic spinal decompression: a case report.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Posterior endoscopic cervical foramiotomy and discectomy: clinical and radiological computer tomography evaluation on the bony effect of decompression with 2 years follow-up.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 · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD) is an ideal minimally invasive decompression technique for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). However, the mainstream is the resection of dorsal bone and removal of free nucleus pulposus. The necessity of excision of ventral osteophytes and hyperplastic ligaments in the treatment of CSR caused by cervical foraminal and/or lateral spinal stenosis (CFa/oLSS) to be discussed.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of 46 patients with CSR caused by CFa/oLSS from January 2017 to November 2018. These patients received posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression-ventral bony decompression (PPECD-VBD)(23 cases, classified as VBD group) or posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical decompression-simple dorsal decompression (PPECD-SDD)(23 cases, classified as SDD group). Following surgery, we recorded Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Neck Disable Index (NDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Scores and myodynamia. We further evaluated the changes of cervical curvature and cervical spine motion in the VBD group and recorded the operation time and complications during the follow-up of each patient.
resultsAll patients underwent successful operations, with an average follow-up time of 16.53 ± 9.90 months. The excellent and good rates in the VBD and SDD groups were 91.29 and 60.87%, respectively. In the SDD group, neck-VAS, arm-VAS, and NDI scores were significantly higher than those of the VBD group at 1 day, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery (P < 0.05), while the JOA scores and improvement rate of JOA were significantly lower than those of the VBD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of angular displacement (AD), horizontal displacement (HD), segmental angle (SA) and cervical curvature (CA) before and after the operation in the VBD group (P > 0.05).
conclusionPPECD-VBD was significantly better than PPECD-SDD as well as PPECD-VBD had no significant effects on cervical spine stability or cervical curvature.
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.