ArticleJournal of pain research2021
Better Functional Outcome and Pain Relief in the Far-Lateral-Outside-in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the mechanisms and therapeutic role of γ-oryzanol in neuropathic pain: a systematic review.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- PL-TOSP, the Novel Entry Point in Transforaminal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Radiological Analysis with Prospective Surgical Evaluation and Review of Literature of Various Skin Entry Points.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes of FETD versus UBE in the treatment of L5S1 foraminal stenosis: A comparative study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparison of Three Common Intervertebral Disc Discectomies in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on Multiple Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEven though percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) has been widely used for the surgical treatment of lumbar herniated disc, there are only a few studies directly comparing the clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy (MD) and PETD. Therefore, further studies are needed in order to compare the clinical outcomes between PETD and MD on a single level more thoroughly.
methodsWe proposed a far-lateral-outside-in technique for PETD to get an entry point without complex planning and facet violation. From September 2017 to September 2019, a total of 155 patients (69 with PETD and 86 with MD) were enrolled for this retrospective study, with the inclusion criteria: single level between L2 and S1, clinical sciatica for at least 6 weeks, and failed attempts with non-surgical treatments. Patients were excluded due to cauda equina syndrome, progressive neurologic deficits, history of lumbar spinal surgery, endplate modic changes, severe disc degeneration and less than 24 months of follow-up.
resultsPETD showed significantly shorter surgery time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to MD. The difference between PETD and MD in VAS back pain (but not VAS leg pain) at follow-up time was significant. The ODI improvement in the follow-up time of 6 months between the 2 groups showed a significant difference (PETD: 31.23±6.59, MD: 39.85±7.81, p < 0.001). MD had a significantly higher chance of postoperative wound infection and poor healing, while PETD was more likely to have recurrence of the herniated disc.
conclusionMD has been the gold standard procedure for LDH. However, with the advanced endoscopic technology and surgical technique, PETD has emerged as an alternative method due to higher functional outcome and less wound problems.
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.