ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2020
Successful Introduction of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Discectomy in Sweden.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic Anatomy and Clinical Value of the Modified Corner Approach in Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Reducing the learning curve of interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy: mushroom model-simulation training.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
- Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy vs Standard Discectomy: A Noninferiority Study on Clinically Relevant Changes.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) procedures has made it possible to challenge microscopic discectomy as the gold standard method to treat lumbar disc herniations. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the introductory-phase postoperative clinical improvement for FELD patients regarding leg pain, patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), complications, reoperations, and learning curve analysis.
methodsAll patients who underwent FELD at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden, were prospectively included during 2013- 2017. A total of 92 patients were enrolled and followed up for 1 year. The characteristics of the study population, degree of leg pain, complications, learning curve, and PROMs were retrieved from patient records and the National Quality Register for Spine Surgery (Swespine).
resultsThe postoperative results demonstrated major improvements; leg pain measured by a numerical rating scale (0-10) decreased from 7.4 ± 2.25 to 2.76 ± 2.70, with a mean improvement of -4.54, (-3.62-5.46) 95% confidence interval (CI). The Oswestry Disability Index decreased by 30.48 (-36.27-23.73) with a 95% CI, and the EuroQol-5D increased by 0.39 (0.21-0.57) 95% CI. An assessment of the final surgical result showed that 91.6% ranked their general situation as better or much better. Specifically, regarding postoperative leg pain, 87% regarded their leg pain as completely gone, much better, or somewhat better, while 13% regarded their leg pain as unchanged or worse. A learning curve analysis showed that for every 10th FELD procedure performed; the duration of surgery decreased by 2 minutes.
conclusionsIn our study, the introduction of FELD as a safe, quick procedure for the treatment of lumbar disc herniations can yield significant gains in patient-reported outcome measurements and pain reduction. The rate of recurrence and complications is comparable to that of standard surgery.
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.