ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Body Image and Cosmesis after Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Conventional Open Microdiscectomy for Sciatica.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02602093 (), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
(Cost) Effectiveness of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy vs. Open Microdiscectomy for Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Risk factors for ninety-day readmissions following full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy for 1542 patients in the biggest spine institutes in Korea.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
- Assessing the Learning Process of Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Sciatica.Neurospine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRandomized controlled trial.
objectivePercutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) was introduced as a less invasive procedure to treat sciatica. Even though the PTED has a small scar size, it is unknown if PTED also leads to better scar-related patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to compare scar-related outcomes between patients undergoing PTED vs open microdiscectomy.
methodsPatients with at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PTED or open microdiscectomy. Scar-related patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Body Image Score (BIS), Cosmesis Scale (CS) and a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) on scar esthetic.
resultsOf the 530 included patients, 286 patients underwent PTED and 244 underwent open microdiscectomy as allocated. At 12 months of follow-up, 95% of the patients had data available. At 12 months, the BIS was 6.2 ± 1.7 in the PTED-group and 6.6 ± 1.9 in the open microdiscectomy group (between-group difference .4, 95% CI .2 to .7). CS was 21.3 ± 3.0 in the PTED-group and 18.6 ± 3.4 in the open microdiscectomy group (between-group difference -2.7, 95% CI -3.1 to -2.3). Average NRS for scar esthetic was 9.2 ± 1.3 and 7.8 ± 1.6 in the PTED and open microdiscectomy groups, respectively (between-group difference -1.4, 95% CI -1.6 to -1.2).
conclusionsPTED leads to a higher self-rated scar esthetic as compared to open microdiscectomy, while self-reported body image seems to be comparable between both groups. Therefore, from an esthetic point, PTED seems to be the preferred technique to treat sciatica.
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.