ArticleSpine surgery and related research2021
Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Simplified and Efficient Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Technique With Reduced Radiation: A Retrospective Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- The utilization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Development of New Surgical Training for Full Endoscopic Surgery Using 3D-Printed Models.Spine surgery and related research · 2024Article
- Effects of different seat inclination angles on lumbar dynamic response and injury during lunar-earth reentry.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Repeat Discectomy for the Management of Same-Level Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Study of 50 Patients.Cureus · 2023Article
- Repeat discectomy for recurrent same level disc herniation: A literature review of the past 5 years.Surgical neurology international · 2023Review
- Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for pathologies of lumbar spine: A nationwide cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRevision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after surgical treatment is at times challenging due to epidural adhesions and scar. This study aimed to review the clinical results and safety of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy via interlaminar (FELD-IL) and transforaminal (FELD-TF) approaches for revision surgery.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study including 52 lumbar disc herniation revision patients (mean age, 51.8 years; male/female, 13/39), with 17 FELD-IL and 35 FELD-TF cases. Complication incidences were assessed by reviewing surgical videos and postoperative magnetic resonance images of nerve decompression outcomes. Patients' responses to Japan Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) and numerical rating scales (NRS) for lumbar pain, leg pain, and leg numbness were recorded before and during follow-up. The Wilcoxon-signed rank tests were utilized to compare pre- and postoperative group variables.
resultsThe average operation time was 33.0 min in FELD-IL and 31.7 min in FELD-TF. Seven FELD-IL cases required lamina excavation with high-speed drill bars for scar tissue dissection from the lamina. Dura injury occurred during the excavation in one case. No complication was noted in the FELD-TF group. Successful decompression of the nerve was achieved in all cases. Complete sets of JOABPEQ and NRS were obtained in 64.5% of FELD-IL and in 82.9% of FELD-TF. The mean follow-up period was 18.6 months. All the subdomain of JOABPEQ and NRS improved significantly postoperative in both groups. There was no difference regarding the improvement of scores between the procedures except NRS for lumbar pain, which was more favorable in FELD-IL. Recurrence of herniation occurred in one patient (6%) after FELD-IL and two patients (6%) after FELD-TF.
conclusionsBoth FELD-IL and FELD-TF are safe and effective revision procedures for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. FELD-TF could be performed employing the same procedure as primary surgery in revisions, regardless of the previous surgical approach.
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.