ArticleGlobal spine journal2023
Comparative Analysis of Non-Full and Full Endoscopic Spine Technique via Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective, Single Institute, Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement in low back pain following endoscopic decompression for spinal stenosis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional virtual surgical planning enhances precision and safety in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Establishment of a rabbit model for microscopically assisted posterior lumbar fenestration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Full Endoscopy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Full endoscopic laminotomy decompression versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-segment cervical spinal stenosis: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Finite element analysis of endoscopic cross-overtop decompression for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis based on real clinical cases.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective study.
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of posterior lumbar laminectomy decompression under full endoscopic technique (Endo-LOVE) and percutaneous endoscopic medial foraminal decompression (PE-MFD) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).
methodsBetween April 2017 and April 2018, 96 patients with DLSS underwent Endo-LOVE or PE-MFD, including 58 with Endo-LOVE and 38 with PE-MFD. After propensity score matching (PSM), patient characteristics, operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, postoperative bedridden time, hospital stay and postoperative complications were recorded and compared. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar disease JOA and modified MacNab criteria.
resultsA total of 96 patients with DLSS were included in the study. After PSM, the 2 groups were comparable in patient demographic and baseline characteristics. The operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times in PE-MFD group were significantly more than those in Endo-LOVE group (
conclusionEndo-LOVE and PE-MFD technique can both effectively treat DLSS, and the short-term follow-up results are positive. Endo-LOVE technique has the advantages of fast puncture positioning, less radiation exposure and wider indications. However, PE-MFD needs more radiation exposure and has the possibility of incomplete decompression for complex multiplanar spinal stenosis.
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.