Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34974421›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021

Uniportal Endoscopic Interlaminar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comprehensive Review.

Kuang-Yuan Goh, Jui-Chen Hsu, Ching-Yu Lee, Tsung-Jen Huang, Chien-Min Chen, Meng-Huang Wu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Full-endoscopic bilateral over-the-top decompression in lumbar central stenosis: surgical technique and outcomes.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 · 2023
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kuang-Yuan GohDepartment of Medical Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jui-Chen HsuDepartment of Medical Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ching-Yu LeeDepartment of Orthopedics, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsung-Jen HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chien-Min ChenDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan 96015@cch.org.tw maxwutmu@gmail.com.
Meng-Huang WuDepartment of Orthopedics, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan 96015@cch.org.tw maxwutmu@gmail.com.
Taipei Medical University Hospital · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrom the 1990s, there has been growth in the literature demonstrating the feasibility of minimally invasive approaches for treating variety lumbar spinal disorders. There is still much work to be done in overcoming the technical challenges and explicate relative advantages of endoscopic techniques in lumbar spine surgery. In this comprehensive literature review, we discuss the history, indications, contraindications, surgical techniques, learning curves, technical tips, adverse events, and examine peer-reviewed studies addressing uniportal endoscopic interlaminar decompression in lumbar spinal surgery.

methodsThis literature review was conducted with keywords "endoscopic," "minimally invasive," "uniportal endoscopic decompression," "interlaminar decompression," and "lumbar spinal surgery" using PubMed, Embase, ClinicalKey, and Google Scholar.

resultsReview of 423 patients who underwent uniportal endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression showed satisfying results with 82% of patients no longer having leg pain, and 13% of patients having only occasional pain, with no significant operation-related deterioration in leg or back pain. To compare the outcomes between endoscopic and microscopic technique, a comparative review of 192 lumbar lateral recess stenosis patients demonstrated the uniportal endoscopic group had 29% shorter operation duration, 1.2% fewer perioperative complications, and significantly reduced postoperative pain (visual analog scale) over 5 days, and reduced use of pain medications. Multiple retrospective studies echoed the outcomes of endoscopic decompression surgery, showed shorter hospitalization time, lower mean dural expansion, lower increment of horizontal displacement measured, and less elevated levels of postoperative serum CPK (creatine phosphokinase) and CRP (c-reactive protein). Lastly, a systematic review and meta-analysis that enrolled 994 patients found that patients who received the full-endoscopic decompression technique showed statistically lower levels of back pain and leg pain and a 40% lower chance of having complications compared with those receiving microscopic decompression in lumbar stenosis.

conclusionsBased on our literature review, there are multiple positive outcomes with endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression, which reduces operation duration, perioperative complications, and better postoperative outcomes. However, the technical challenge highlights the importance of further training and innovation in this rapidly evolving field.

Identifiers

PMID34974421
PMCPMC9421280
OpenAlexW4206124572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.