ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
Propensity matched outcome analysis following microdiscectomy versus interlaminar endoscopic discectomy for L5-S1 disc herniation.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- "ULTRA" Lateral Decompression Technique for Lumbar Discectomy: An Evaluation of 30-Day Outcomes From an 8-Year Single Surgeon Experience.International journal of spine surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The main purpose of the study is to perform a propensity-matched functional outcome analysis following microdiscectomy (MD) versus interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) for L5-S1 disc herniation. Although many studies have compared endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microdiscectomy, few have compared the outcomes of microdiscectomy (MD) and interlaminar endoscopic discectomy (IELD) at the L5-S1 level. Methods: This is a propensity-matched analysis of 100 patients (50 MD patients, 50 IELD patients) based on baseline covariates with a minimum of one-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measures were obtained from EMR during follow-up visits. Back pain and sciatic pain were assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS-B and VAS-L). Functional outcome was assessed using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Score and 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) score. Data were obtained at baseline (pre-op) and at 0, 1, 3, and 12 months post-operatively. Results: Mean operative time was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the IELD group (44 min) compared to the MD group (59 min). Mean VAS-B at the immediate and 1-month postoperative period was significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the IELD group (0.36, 0.24) when compared with the MD group (1.74, 1.16). There was no significant difference between IELD and MD groups with regard to improvement in sciatic pain (VAS-L). ODI scores at 1 month and 3 months post-operative period were significantly (p < 0.001) lower in the IELD group (30.1, 23.2) when compared with the MD group (41, 27.5). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to VAS-B, ODI, and SF-12 at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the IELD group achieved better immediate and early postoperative outcomes despite no significant difference at one-year follow-up.
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.