Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33035202›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020

Comparison Between Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Fenestration in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Yang Zhang, Hengjie Zhu, Zheng Zhou, Jixiang Wu, Yinming Sun, Xiang Shen, Chengcun Li

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors.

Yang ZhangDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Hengjie ZhuDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Zheng ZhouDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Jixiang WuDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Yinming SunDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Xiang ShenDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).
Chengcun LiDepartment of Bone Surgery, Yangzhou Hongquan Hospital, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic and prognostic effects of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). MATERIAL AND METHODS One hundred eighty-eight patients with DLSS were randomly divided into the fenestration and the PTED group for decompression treatment. Operative time, incision length, amount of blood loss, length of hospitalization, and rates of complications in the 2 groups were compared. All patients underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the first postoperative day. All patients were assessed preoperatively and the treatment effects at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopedic Association Score (JOA) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The modified MacNab criteria were used to assess patient satisfaction 1 year after surgery at the last follow-up. RESULTS Patients who underwent PTED had shorter incisions, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stays than those in the fenestration group, but operative times and complication rates were similar in the 2 groups. Moreover, CT scanning and MRI revealed similar treatment effects in the 2 groups. Compared with preoperative status, improvements in VAS, ODI, and JOA scores occurred at different times after surgery in the 2 groups. In particular, all 3 scores in the PTED group were higher than those in the fenestration group at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in MacNab scores between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS PTED is safer and more effective than traditional fenestration for management of DLSS.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalDiskectomy, PercutaneousAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLumbar VertebraeMaleSpinal Stenosis

Identifiers

PMID33035202
PMCPMC7552888
OpenAlexW3081266544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.