ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Minimally invasive discectomy versus open laminectomy and discectomy for the treatment of cauda equina syndrome: A preliminary study and case series.
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.
- Clinical efficacy and impact on sexual function of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of male lumbar disc herniation complicated with cauda equina syndrome.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic and open laminectomy in multilevel lumbar stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Post-traumatic cauda equina nerve calcification: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cauda Equina syndrome (CES) is a potentially devastating condition and is treated usually with urgent open surgical decompression of the spinal canal. Currently, the role of minimally invasive discectomy (MID) as an alternative surgical technique for CES is unclear. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes following MID and open laminectomy and discectomy for the treatment of CES. Methods: The study cohort included patients that underwent surgery due to CES at our institute. Patients' outcomes included: surgical complications, length of hospitalization, postoperative lower extremity motor score (LEMS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for leg and back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the EQ-5D health-related quality of life questionnaire. Results: Twelve patients underwent MID and 12 underwent open laminectomy and discectomy. Complications and revisions rates were comparable between the groups. Postoperative urine incontinence and saddle dysesthesia improved in 50% of patients in both groups. LEMS improved from 47.08 ± 5.4 to 49.27 ± 0.9 in the MID group and from 44.46 ± 5.9 to 49.0 ± 1.4 in the open group. Although, leg pain improved in both groups from 8.4 ± 2.4 to 3 ± 2.1 in the MID and from 8.44 ± 3.3 to 3.88 ± 3 in the open group, significant improvement in back pain was found only in the MID group. Final functional scores were similar between groups. Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that minimally invasive discectomy is an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of CES when compared to open laminectomy and discectomy. However, MID in these cases should only be considered by surgeons experienced in minimally invasive spine surgery. Further studies with bigger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are needed.
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.