ArticleMedicine2020
Clinical effects of transforaminal approach vs interlaminar approach in treating lumbar disc herniation: A clinical study protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural injection among patients with lumbosacral disc herniation.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Radiographic characteristics-based classification system for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy surgical approach selection in patients with L5-S1 disc herniation: a hierarchical clustering analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Herpes zoster-induced acute urinary retention, limb paresis, and constipation in two immunocompetent patients.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2022Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomyFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has routinely performed in recent years for lumbar disc herniation because of the advances in technology of minimally invasive spine surgery. Two common operating routes for PELD have been introduced in the literature: transforaminal approach (TA) and interlaminar approach (IA). The purpose of our current retrospective clinical trial was to study whether the effect of IA-PELD is better than TA-PELD in the incidence of complications and clinical prognosis scores in the patients with L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation.
methodsOur present research was approved by the institutional review board in the Second Hospital of Nanjing. All the patients offered the informed consent. All the procedures containing human participants were conducted on the basis of the Helsinki Declaration. A retrospective analysis was implemented on 126 patients with L5-S1 disc herniated radiculopathy from March 2016 to March 2018, who were treated with the PELD utilizing the IA technique or the TA technique. Relevant data, such as the patients demographics, surgical duration, length of hospital stay, hospitalization expenses, complications were recorded. In our work, the outcomes of patients were determined at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment. The measure of primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index score. The other outcomes measured were Numeric Rating Scale pain scale, surgical duration, length of hospital stay, and complications. The software of SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY) was applied for the analysis of all the statistical data. When P value <.05, it was considered to be significant in statistics.
resultsThis protocol will provide a solid theoretical basis for exploring which PELD approach is better in treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5988).
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.