ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Under General and Local Anesthesia: A Single-Center Study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Interlaminar Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study of 176 Cases With a 3-6 Year Follow-Up.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Learning Curve of Uniportal Compared With Biportal Endoscopic Techniques for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Anesthesia Methods in Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis.Pain research & management · 2024Review
- Bibliometric analysis and description of research trends on transforaminal full-endoscopic approach on the spine for the last two-decades.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 · 2023Article
- Comparative analysis of perioperative characteristics and early outcomes in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar diskectomy: general anesthesia versus conscious sedation.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 · 2023Article
- Editorial: MISS innovations: Approaches, predictive outcomes, and risk avoidance.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Fully endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for thoracolumbar junction disc herniation with or without calcification under general anesthesia: Technical notes and preliminary outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for awake spine surgery: A case report and review of the literature.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous spinal endoscopy is used for the treatment of disorders of the lumbar spine, as it has several advantages over traditional surgical methods. The performance of percutaneous spinal endoscopy is not possible without applying anesthesia methods. Two types (local and general) of anesthesia are used for percutaneous spinal endoscopy. Both, local and general anesthesia approaches contribute to safety in surgical procedures. Although it is believed that the method of local anesthesia has more benefits over general anesthesia, such as lowering the risk of postoperative neurological complications in a patient, the literature on the topic is inconclusive. The study aims to perform a comparative analysis of the two anesthesia methods using a prospective case-control design. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received local anesthesia (LA) (20 patients), and those who underwent general anesthesia (GA) (20 patients). As a result of the study, 40% of the patients experienced moderate pain and 5% of the patients experienced excruciating pain intraoperatively in the LA group. Although Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved more rapidly in LA group, at the 12-month check-up point there was no significant difference between cases and controls. Nevertheless, there were postoperative complications such as nerve root injury in 10% of the patients; nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness in 15% of the patients in the GA group, and an insignificant or no such complications in patients of the LA group. The present study demonstrates that LA contributes to more positive short-term outcomes for patients as it facilitates nerve root damage prevention, and has no postoperative side effects on patients' well being.
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.