ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Comparison of the application value of two commonly used minimally invasive spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive vs. microscopic discectomy for adolescent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study of clinical and spinopelvic outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Identification of copper death-associated molecular clusters and immunological profiles for lumbar disc herniation based on the machine learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomyFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the application value of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From January 2017 to July 2018, 108 LDH patients undergoing surgical treatment in our hospital were collected and divided into PTED group (treated with PTED, n=50) and MED group (treated with MED, n=58). The operation parameter index level, complications, recurrence and pain score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale (JOA) were compared between the two groups. VAS, ODI and JOA scores of the two groups were significantly decreased after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Complications and recurrence of the two groups were similar (P>0.05). MED was superior to PTED in the number of intraoperative fluoroscopy and operation time, while PTED was superior to MED in intraoperative blood loss, incision length, length of hospital stay and bed rest time (P<0.05). Both PTED and MED can effectively treat LDH. Referring to clinical data, PTED may be the first choice for LDH treatment.
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.