ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
A comparative study of single and double incision for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-level percutaneous interlaminar lumbar discectomy.
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 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.
- An intensive non-invasive protocol combining non-surgical spinal decompression and supportive physiotherapeutic modalities in the treatment of double-level disc herniation at L4-L5 and L5-S1: A case report.Trauma case reports · 2025Article
- Characterization of pain-related behaviors in a rat model of acute-to-chronic low back pain: single vs. multi-level disc injury.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and conventional open lumbar discectomy for L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segmental lumbar disk herniation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to investigate the clinical outcome of single and double incision for double-level percutaneous interlaminar lumbar discectomy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed involving patients with L4/5 and L5/S1 double-level lumbar disc herniation who received percutaneous interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PEID) in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020. These enrolled patients were divided into single- and double-incision groups, with 25 patients in each group. We compared the incision length, operation time, fluoroscopy times, and length of hospital stay between the two groups. Meanwhile, the postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and modified MacNab standard were used to evaluate the outcomes of the patients within the two groups. Results: It showed that the single-incision group performed better than double-incision group in incision length, operation time, and fluoroscopy times ( Conclusion: Both the single- and double-incision approaches are effective and safe for managing L4/5 and L5/S1 double-level LDH. Single-incision PEID for treating L4/5 and L5/S1 double-segment lumbar disc herniation has advantages of less trauma, fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times, and shorter operation time, as compared to double-incision PEID. However, the operation of double-segment LDH through a single laminar incision is difficult, the learning curve is steep, and professional skill is highly required. Importantly, the surgical indications should be strictly grasped.
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.