ArticleJournal of pain research2023
Analysis of the Efficacy of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation with Different Types/Grades of Modic Changes.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between Modic changes and recurrence of lumbar disc herniation after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic treatment for lumbar disorders as day surgery: A-2-Year Follow-Up retrospective cohort study.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 · 2025Article
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
Background: Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), one of the main techniques of spinal endoscopy, has achieved excellent results in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, its efficacy has not been systematically described in patients with LDH accompanied by Modic changes (MC). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to observe the clinical efficacy of PEID treatment of LDH accompanied by MC. Patients and Methods: A total of 207 patients who underwent PEID surgery for LDH were selected. According to the existence and type of MC on preoperative lumbar magnetic resonance images (MRI), they were divided into normal group (no MC, n=117), M1 group (MC I, n=23), and M2 group (MC II, n=67). According to the severity of MC, they were divided into MA group (grade A, n=45) and MBC group (grade B and C, n=45). The visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, Disc height index (DHI), Lumbar lordosis angle (LL) and modified Macnab criteria were used to assess clinical outcomes. Results: Postoperative back pain and leg pain VAS scores and ODI scores were significantly improved in all groups compared with preoperative scores. Patients with MC showed a deterioration in postoperative back pain VAS scores and ODI scores as time went by, and postoperative DHI decreased significantly compared with preoperative. Postoperative LL did not change significantly in each group. There was no significant difference in complications, recurrence rate and excellent rate between the groups. Conclusion: Whether accompanied by MC or not, the efficacy of PEID for LDH was significant. However, postoperative back pain and functional status of patients with MC tend to deteriorate as time went by, especially those with type I or severe MC.
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.