ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression versus Open Decompression and Fusion Surgery for the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired change scores.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Computed tomography imaging for exploring the appropriate angle of a visible Trephine in endoscopic spine lumbar interbody fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- How many cases to proficiency? A systematic review of the learning curve in endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Review
- Surgical and anaesthesia decision making algorithms in patients with congenital spinal stenosis: a case report of awake endoscopic decompression in a patient with achondroplasia and literature review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Review
- Association Between Spinopelvic Alignment and Reoperation Following Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression: A Matched Case-Control Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Article
- Transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion microscopic safe operating area: a three-dimensional model study based on computed tomography imaging.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Long-term efficacy of Waveflex semi-rigid-dynamic-internal-fixation system in delaying intervertebral disc degeneration at adjacent segments and improving spinal sagittal imbalance.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Comparison analysis of safety outcomes and the rate of subsequent spinal procedures between interspinous spacer without decompression versus minimally invasive lumbar decompression.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Recompression after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: risk factors and outcomes of two different reoperation procedures.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- [Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Review
- Complications and risk factors of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompare the efficacy of full-endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (FELDS) and open decompression and fusion surgery (ODFS) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 358 LSS patients treated by FELDS ("FELD" group) or ODFS ("open" group) was undertaken. There were 177 patients in the FELDS group with a mean age of 65.47±9.26 years and 181 patients in the open group with a mean age of 64.18±10.24 years. Duration of follow-up was 38.63±11.88 months in the FELDS group and 38.56±12.29 months in the open group. Visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Modified MacNab criteria were used to access clinical outcomes. Surgical outcomes (duration of surgical procedure, blood loss, complications, duration of postoperative hospital stay (DOPHS), prevalence of revision procedures) were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate the change in the Pfirrmann grade at adjacent segments.
resultsVAS score (leg and back) and ODI improved significantly in both groups (P<0.001). Success rate reached 86.55% and 90.60% in the FELDS group and open group (P>0.05), respectively. Procedure duration (84.12 vs 112.08 min), blood loss (7.97 vs 279.67 mL), and DOPHS (2.68 vs 4.78 days) of the FELDS group were significantly better than those of the open group (P<0.05). Total prevalence of complications and procedure revisions was 14.69% and 10.73% in the FELD group, respectively, but did not show a significant difference with that in the open group (12.15% and 9.39%, respectively). The Pfirrmann grade increased in 13.04% of adjacent segments in the FELDS group, significantly better than that in the open group (32.67%) (P<0.05).
conclusionFELDS had the same efficacy as ODFS for LSS treatment. FELDS had the advantages of minimal invasiveness, less surgical trauma, rapid recovery, and lower risk of degeneration of adjacent segments compared with that of ODFS.
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.