ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2023
An algorithm for selection of full endoscopic approach for symptomatic nerve root decompression.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Technological, and Patient-Specific Issues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Postoperative discal pseudocyst: Report of A case with an unusual complication after microlumbar discectomy and successful treatment by transforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression.Surgical neurology international · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Context: Both Transforaminal (TF) and Interlaminar (IL) endoscopic approaches are established techniques of decompression for lumbar compressive radiculopathy. In the absence of adequate literature, there is always some dilemma in selecting the approach for endoscopic decompression leading to long learning curves and high chances of inadequate decompression, iatrogenic instability, dural tear, or dysesthesia. Hence authors propose a new surgical nomenclature and algorithm for selection of endoscopic approach. Methods: This retrospective study included 396 of 626 consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria, who underwent either TF (n=302) or IL (n=202) full endoscopic spine surgery. MRI findings of every patient were classified as per FAPDIS (Facet angle, Anterior pathology, Posterior pathology, Dorsal, Inferior, and Superior migration) algorithm. Inter-observer variations were calculated. The targeted nomenclature was used to define the selection of endoscopic TF or IL approach for symptomatic nerve root decompression. All patients were followed up for preop and postop 6 months VAS and Oswestry Disability Index score for validation of FAPDIS algorithm. Results: Median age: 46.8 years; Sides and levels operated 330 single-level ipsilateral, 54 multiple-level ipsilateral, 6 single-level bilateral, and 6 multiple-level bilateral. Interobserver agreement in the selection of TF approach was 0.873 and IL approach was 0.882. Interobserver variability was also calculated for each FAPDIS factor, selection of P3 and P4 pathology was the main reason for disagreement. All other FAPDIS factors show good to excellent correlation. The overall VAS score decreased from a preoperative value of 9 to 1 at 6 months follow-up (p-value < 0.001), and the overall Oswestry Disability Index score improved from 89 to 12 (p-value <.001). Conclusions: The author's new FAPDIS surgical nomenclature and algorithm is a reliable tool for describing the symptomatic nerve root compression for the selection of endoscopic surgical approach to achieve adequate decompression of offending neural structure with minimum challenges to minimize perioperative complication rate.
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.