Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36309738›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2022

Comparison of the short-term effects of lumbar endoscopic and microscopic tubular unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Jianing Zhang, Dingjie Liang, Mengmeng Xu, Kun Yan, Dapeng Zhang, Weiqing Qian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jianing Zhang *NanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China.
Dingjie LiangNanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China.
Mengmeng XuNanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China.
Kun YanNanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China.
Dapeng ZhangNanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China.
Weiqing QianNanJing Hospital of Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210001, Jiangsu, China. qwq68@126.com.
Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of lumbar endoscopic Delta large channel and microscopic tubular Quadrant channel unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

methodsA total of 40 patients aged above 75 years with lumbar spinal stenosis admitted from June 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed, in which the observation group was treated with the Delta large channel technique and the control group was treated with Quadrant channel open decompression. The general data, duration of illness, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score preoperatively, 3 days postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively and 6 months postoperatively, and ODI index of the two groups were recorded in the two groups.

resultsThe observation group had significantly shorter operation time (59.93 ± 10.46 min vs 77.66 ± 12.44 min, P < 0.001) and less intraoperative bleeding (21.06 ± 4.59 mL vs 51.00 ± 10.02 mL, P < 0.001) than the control group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of illness (11.85 ± 5.08 years vs 13.80 ± 7.40 years, P = 0.337), VAS score preoperatively (6.05 ± 1.19 vs 6.40 ± 1.47, P = 0.412), 3 days postoperatively (1.90 ± 0.85 vs 2.00 ± 1.08, P = 0.746), 3 months postoperatively (1.10 ± 0.31 vs 1.20 ± 0.41, P = 0.389) and 6 months postoperatively (1.25 ± 0.44 vs 1.30 ± 0.57, P = 0.759), and ODI index preoperatively (0.78 ± 0.07 vs 0.74 ± 0.07, P = 0.09), 3 months postoperatively (0.28 ± 0.06 vs 0.30 ± 0.05, P = 0.189) and 6 months postoperatively (0.21 ± 0.07 vs 0.22 ± 0.04, P = 0.444) (P > 0.05). The ODI index 3 days postoperatively in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (0.33 ± 0.06 vs 0.37 ± 0.05, P = 0.022).

conclusionBoth surgical methods had good clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. However, Delta large channel endoscopy had a clearer vision, less trauma and lower incidence of early postoperative back pain than that of Quadrant channel open decompression.

Indexed as

Spinal StenosisAgedDecompression, SurgicalEndoscopyHumansLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDelta large channel endoscopyElderlyLumbar spinal stenosisQuadrant channel

Identifiers

PMID36309738
PMCPMC9618179
OpenAlexW4307849123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.