Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565271›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021

Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Xiao-Bing Zhao, Hai-Jun Ma, Bin Geng, Hong-Gang Zhou, Ya-Yi Xia

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiao-Bing Zhao *Department of Orthopaedics, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Hai-Jun Ma *Department of Mini-invasive Spinal Surgery, Third Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, China.
Bin GengDepartment of Orthopaedics, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Hong-Gang ZhouDepartment of Mini-invasive Spinal Surgery, Third Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, China.
Ya-Yi XiaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Lanzhou University · CNMolina Center for Energy and the Environment · USThird Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

Cuiying Scientific and Technological Innovation Program of Lanzhou University Second Hospital CY2017-QN12Cuiying Scientific and Technological Innovation Program of Lanzhou University Second Hospital CY2017-ZD02Doctoral Research fund of Lanzhou University Second Hospital ynbskyjj2015-2-9Joint project of Medical science and Technology of Henan Province LHGJ20190859Lanzhou Science and Technology Plan Program 2017-4-88Lanzhou Science and Technology Plan Program 2018-3-52Lanzhou UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China 81874017National Natural Science Foundation of China 81960403Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province of China 17JR5RA188Overseas Research and Training Project of Health Science and Technology Talents in Henan Province HWYX 2019159The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities lzujbky-2019-kb16
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To introduce a new surgery, percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD) using visual trepan, and investigate its efficacy and safety in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In our retrospective study, a total of 69 patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018; 31 patients were treated with Endo-ULBD and 38 patients were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIF). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization duration were compared between the two groups. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were used to evaluate lumbar function and quality of life, respectively. Lumbar X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed postoperatively at different time points. MacNab's outcome assessment and perioperative complications were also documented. The surgeon completed all surgeries successfully, and all 69 patients were followed up. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was 60.68 ± 0.47 min, while that of the PLIF group was 120.23 ± 10.24 min. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was shorter than that of the PLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 47.25 ± 0.43 mL in the Endo-ULBD group and 256.90 ± 20.83 mL in the PILF group (P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay in the Endo-ULBD group was 5.12 ± 1.60 days and that in the PILF group was 10.54 ± 1.82 days (P < 0.001). The VAS scores at postoperative 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, final follow-up (Endo-ULBD: 6.58 ± 0.65, 4.55 ± 0.54, 2.78 ± 0.24, 1.31 ± 0.78; PLIF: 7.19 ± 1.14, 4.80 ± 0.13, 2.71 ± 0.83, 1.29 ± 0.56) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 8.63 ± 0.37; PLIF: 8.31 ± 1.34). The ODI and EQ-5D scores of lumbar function and quality of life at each time point after surgery (Endo-ULBD ODI: 30.29% ± 0.47%, 23.35% ± 0.95%, 19.45% ± 0.81%, 10.84% ± 0.36%; EQ-5D: 0.38 ± 0.15, 0.45 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.14, 0.71 ± 0.20; PLIF ODI: 33.56% ± 1.58%, 25.69% ± 2.69%, 20.01% ± 1.49%, 10.72% ± 0.29%; EQ-5D: 0.33 ± 0.03, 0.39 ± 0.05, 0.62 ± 0.07, 0.72 ± 0.10) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 44.56 ± 1.32, 0.33 ± 0.07; PLIF: 43.79 ± 1.91, 0.31 ± 0.09, respectively), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). At the last follow-up, the excellent and good efficacy rate was 90.3% (28/31) in the Endo-ULBD group and 89.4% (34/38) in the PILF group (χ

Indexed as

AgedDecompression, SurgicalDisability EvaluationEndoscopyFemaleHumansLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeMalePain MeasurementRetrospective StudiesSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisEndoscopicLumbar spinal stenosisUnilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD)Visual trepan

Identifiers

PMID33565271
PMCPMC7957412
OpenAlexW3126961780

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.