Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35444042›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Documentation of Approach Trauma With Lumbar Endoscopic Interlaminar, Translaminar, Compared to Open Microsurgical Discectomy.

Stefan Hellinger, Albert E Telfeian, Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Early complication rates of uniportal Full-Endoscopic lumbar discectomy in 539 patients: a retrospective multicentre study.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 · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Effect of Monopolar Electrocautery and Blunt Dissection on Muscle Damage and Inflammation in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Microdiscectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Stefan HellingerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Arabella Klinik, Munich, Germany.
Albert E TelfeianDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Kai-Uwe LewandrowskiCenter for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona and Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA business@tucsonspine.com.
Desert Institute For Spine Care · USProvidence College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic spine surgery is associated with less approach trauma than conventional open translaminar surgery. However, objective evidence to corroborate this empiric observation is scarce. Preservation of the anatomic attachment and sensory function of multifidus muscles have been stipulated to be critical to maintaining the normal function of the lumbar spinal motion segment. The authors were interested in comparing the postoperative approach trauma between traditional open translaminar microsurgical and interlaminar endoscopic discectomy.

methodsThe approach trauma to the paraspinal muscles due to interlaminar or open microsurgical discectomy was evaluated on T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images of 39 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar disc surgery. Postoperative MRI images taken at 4 days and within 1 year after surgery were analyzed. Eleven patients underwent conventional open translaminar microdiscectomy surgery. Endoscopic discectomy was performed on 17 patients via the interlaminar and on another 11 patients via the transforaminal approach. The immediate surgical approach trauma was estimated as the defect zone by measuring the normalized relative cross-sectional area (rCSA) of muscle disruption in the surgical corridor 4 days postoperatively. The long-term effect of surgical approach trauma was assessed by measuring the area of the paraspinal muscles that had been replaced by fatty tissue 1 year postoperatively.

resultsThe rCSA data showed diminished approach trauma with a smaller surgical defect zone in the interlaminar endoscopy group (17.6%) was smaller than in the microsurgical group 4 days postoperatively (41.2%). At 1 year postoperatively, the mean fatty replacement of the paraspinal muscles was 23.6% after microsurgery and 2.1% after the interlaminar endoscopy. Muscle recovery was substantially reduced in the interlaminar endoscopic group, with the muscle zone reducing from 20.3% to 2.1% when analyzed 1 year postoperatively. In the microsurgery group, the muscle damage by atrophy increased from 41.2% to 62.9% at 1 year postoperatively (

conclusionsTissue trauma was significantly reduced with endoscopic surgery techniques compared with the traditional translaminar microdiscectomy approach. There was a minor postoperative tissue trauma and hardly any long-term replacement of the multifidus and paraspinal muscles by fatty tissue 1 year postoperatively with the endoscopic technique. The transforaminal approach has the least effect on the paraspinal muscles of the surgical motion segment. Further study is needed to investigate whether these findings translate into decreased postoperative instability or low back pain following endoscopic discectomy surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: MRI analysis of multifidus atrophy following various lumbar translaminar and transforaminal decompression techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:

Indexed as

endoscopic discectomytissue damage

Identifiers

PMID35444042
PMCPMC9930667
OpenAlexW4224254014

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.