ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Double-Cannula Guide Tube for Large Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unilateral Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Approach With Bilateral Decompression for Large Central Lumbar Disc Herniation Complicated by Bilateral Neurological Symptoms: A 2-Year Retrospective Clinical Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- The usefulness and utilisation of Lu's retractor for unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) using a double-cannula guide tube (DGT), traditional PELD, and open lumbar discectomy (OLD) to treat large lumbar disc herniations (LLDHs).
methodsSeventy patients who presented with LLDH without cauda equina syndrome and were treated with surgery in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2017 were included. The detailed index included the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and radicular leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the immediate preoperative period and at the final follow-up. The operation time, radiation exposure time, surgical satisfaction rate, and modified MacNab criteria score were also recorded.
resultsThe leg and back pain of the patients in these groups improved significantly in the postoperative period. No significant differences were observed in leg pain improvement between the other two groups; however, patients in the PELD group (with or without DGT) presented with significantly higher improvement in back pain than the OLD group (t = 9.965, p < 0.001). The final ODI scores were 12.1 ± 4.9, 11.2 ± 2.9, and 16.4 ± 3.6 in the PELD, PELD-DGT, and OLD groups, respectively. Patients in the PELD and PELD-DGT groups presented with significantly lower postoperative ODI scores than those in the OLD group (t = 20.834, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays were significantly shorter in the PELD group and PELD with DGT group than in the OLD group (t = 46.688, p < 0.001). The mean operation time was significantly shorter in the PELD-DGT group than those in the PELD group (t = 25.281, p = 0.001). No perioperative complications were observed in either group. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, excellent and good outcomes were achieved in 20 out of 21 patients (95.2%) in the PELD group, 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) in the PELD-DGT group, and 22 out of 25 patients (88.0%) in the OLD group. The rates of excellent and good outcomes were higher in the PELD and PELD-DGT groups than in the OLD group, but there were no significant differences (χ
conclusionsPELD using DGT is a safe and effective option for LLDH and features advantages such as improvements in back pain, a lower hospitalization cost than OLD, a shorter operation time, and less fluoroscopy than traditional PELD.
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.