ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy for treating lumbar disc herniation: Using the survival analysis.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. 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.
- Preoperative paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration and prognosis after lumbar discectomy for disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- [Short-term effectiveness of uni-portal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery via crossing midline approach in treatment of free lumbar disc herniation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
Objectives: This study compared the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) versus open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) for lumbar disc herniation with 2 years of follow-up. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 23 patients who underwent PELD and 32 patients who underwent OLM for lumbar disc herniation. The numeric rating scale of back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were assessed before and at 12 and 24 months after the surgery. The wound pain and complications were also recorded. Survival analysis was performed to estimate the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation. Results: In the comparison of groups, the reductions in back and leg pain, ODI, and RMDQ were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. For patients who underwent PELD, the wound pain was significant lower at the day of surgery. The survival rate of patients who were free from symptomatic recurrent disc herniation at 24 months was 0.913 in PELD and 0.875 in OLM, and the log-rank test revealed no significant difference between the two survival curves. The incidence of complication was not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: Both PELD and OLM are effective treatments for lumbar disc herniation because they have similar clinical outcomes. PELD provided patients with less painful wounds. The survival analysis revealed that the risk of symptomatic recurrent disc herniation in 2 years of follow-up was not different between PELD and OLM.
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.