ArticleClinical interventions in aging2023
Clinical Efficacy of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Spinal Endoscopy in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2023. 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.
- Interlaminar Endoscopic Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Instrumented Lumbar Fusion.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Full-endoscopic decompression surgery in the treatment of elderly patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Decompression and reconstruction the spinal TB lesion of a single vertebra through thoracoscopy alone or combined with foraminal endoscopy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the application effect of interlaminar technique (ILT) and transforaminal technique (TFT) spinal endoscopies in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treatment. Material and Methods: The data of 46 patients aged 65 years or older diagnosed with LSS between January 2019 and March 2021 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. They underwent ILT (21 patients) or TFT (25 patients) spinal endoscopy surgery, and outcomes were analyzed utilizing the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scale. Lumbar stability was also evaluated using the change in dynamic position X-ray of the spine. We also built three-dimensional (3D) finite element of ILT and TFT spine models and compared them with the stability of the intact spine. Results: The ILT group had a longer operation time than the TFT group, and patients in ILT and TFT groups had comparable VAS scores for back pain. However, the TFT group had higher VAS scores for leg pain than the ILT group 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The JOA and ODI scores of the 2 groups improved after surgery, and there were statistical differences between the 2 groups at 6 and 12 months follow-up, which proved that functional recovery was better in ILT group. The pre- and postoperative change in dynamic position X-ray of the spine proved that ILT and TFT would not destroy the spine's stability. 3D finite element lumbar spine model analysis also demonstrated this point. Conclusion: Both ILT and TFT can provide good clinical outcomes; compared with TFT, the ILT approach provided more thorough decompression and was more suitable for treating LSS.
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.