ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2023
Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy vs Standard Discectomy: A Noninferiority Study on Clinically Relevant Changes.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Endoscopy-assisted intrathecal morphine pump implantation for severe cancer pain: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) has had a remarkable technological development during the past 20 years. Microscopic discectomy has traditionally been the gold standard method to treat symptomatic LDH before the introduction of full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD). The FELD procedure allows unsurpassed magnification and visualization and is currently the most minimally invasive surgical technique. In this study, FELD was compared with standard surgery for LDH, with a focus on medically relevant changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether FELD is noninferior to other surgical methods for LDH surgery in the most common PROMs, including postoperative leg pain and disability, while still reaching the necessary thresholds for relevant clinical and medical improvements.
methodsPatients undergoing a FELD procedure at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, between 2013 to 2018 were included. A total of 80 (41 men and 39 women) patients were enrolled. The FELD patients were matched 1:5 to controls from the Swedish spine register (Swespine) who had a standard microscopic or mini-open discectomy surgery. PROMs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), as well as the patient acceptable symptom states (PASS) and the minimal important change (MIC), were used to compare the efficacy of the 2 surgical approaches.
resultsThe FELD group achieved medically relevant and significant improvements noninferior to standard surgery within the predefined thresholds of MIC and PASS. No differences could be found in disability measured by ODI FELD -28.4 (SD 19.2) vs standard surgery -28.7 (SD 18.9) or leg pain NRS
conclusionsThe FELD results are not inferior to standard surgery 1 year postoperatively after LDH surgery. There were no medically significant differences regarding MIC achieved or final PASS in any of the measured PROMs, including leg pain, back pain, or disability (ODI) between the surgical methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study highlights that FELD is noninferior to standard surgery in clinically relevant PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:
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.