ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020
A comparison study of percutaneous endoscopic decompression and posterior decompressive laminectomy in the treatment of thoracic spinal stenosis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Safety and Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for the Treatment of Thoracic Ossification of Ligamentum Flavum with Occupancy Ratio > 60%: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic surgical decompression for symptomatic ossification of the ligamentum flavum - Is it enough to improve the clinical outcome? A case-control study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic decompression (PED) is considered a minimally invasive and safe procedure in lumbar degenerative disease. Few authors report the success of PED for thoracic spinal stenosis (TSS) with thoracic myelopathy. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of PED versus posterior decompressive laminectomy (PDL) for TSS.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 30 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for single-level TSS from January 1, 2015 to May 1, 2019.These patients were divided into PED (n = 16) and PDL(n = 14) group. Preoperative demographic characteristics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative neurological status was evaluated using the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score and the recovery rate (RR).
resultsThe patients' mean age was 57.3 years (27-76) in PED group and 58.8 years (34-77) in PDL group. No statistical difference was found between two groups with regards to neurological status at pre-operative and final follow-up. The RR in PED group achieved the same improvement as PDL group (87.5% vs 85.7%, P > 0.05), while the PED brought advantages in operative time(m) (86.4 vs 132.1, p < 0.05), blood loss (mL) (18.21 vs 228.57, p < 0.05),drainage volume(mL) (15.5 vs 601.4, p < 0.05), and hospital stay (d) (3.6 vs 5.6, p < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth PED and PDL showed favorable outcome in the treatment of TSS. Besides, PED had advantages in reducing traumatization. In terms of perioperative quality of life, PED could be an efficient supplement to traditional posterior decompressive laminectomy in patients with TSS.
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.