SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022
Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic posterior cervical canal decompression versus laminoplasty for two-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical outcomes and finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Posterior Endoscopic Decompression for Symptomatic Cervical Disc Herniation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Transoral navigated full-endoscopic uniportal odontoidectomy: A report of two cases.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 · 2026Article
- Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Modulates Inflammatory Factors and Pain Mediators in Cervical Disc Herniation With Neurogenic Pain.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
- Clinical efficacy and learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for symptomatic cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- A novel posterior endoscopic cervical approach for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a finite-element analysis(C2-T1).Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Single-Level Full Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy and Herniectomy: A 12 months Follow-up.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025Article
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement Versus Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Decompression: A Matched-Pair Comparison Analysis.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Anterior percutaneous full-endoscopic transcorporeal decompression for cervical disc herniation: a finite element analysis and long-term follow-up study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- A narrative review of endoscopic spine surgery: history, indications, uses, and future directions.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Review
- Disc Height and Angle Changes on Radiographs and Magnetic Resonance Imaging after Anterior or Posterior Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Anterior transcorporeal approach combined with posterior translaminar approach in percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for two-segment cervical disc herniation treatment: a technical report and early follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of a Comparative Study of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with Partial Pediculotomy, Partial Vertebrotomy (PPPV) Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Decompression (PECD) for Cervical Foraminal Pathology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- The Role and Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data.
resultsThe proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96).
conclusionPECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.
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.