ArticleNeurospine2023
Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Preliminary Analysis of L5-S1 Lumbar Disc Herniation Outcomes in Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A pragmatic evaluation of outcome fragility in randomized clinical trials comparing open microdiscectomy and endoscopic-assisted discectomy: A meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Review
- Unilateral Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Approach With Bilateral Decompression for Large Central Lumbar Disc Herniation Complicated by Bilateral Neurological Symptoms: A 2-Year Retrospective Clinical Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Improvement in low back pain following endoscopic decompression for spinal stenosis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Beyond the Microscope: Is Endoscopic Discectomy the Next Gold Standard for Lumbar Disc Herniation?Neurospine · 2026Article
- Article
- Spine endoscopic atlas: an open-source dataset for surgical instrument segmentation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Radiographic Anatomy and Clinical Value of the Modified Corner Approach in Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation With Radiculopathy in South Korea.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Evolving Paradigms in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Learning Curves in Minimally Invasive Spine Techniques.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Hybrid Endoscopic Thoracic Discectomy Using Robotic Arm and Navigation for Highly Migrated Calcified Disc Herniation.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Intraoperative Management of Iatrogenic Durotomy in Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.Neurospine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA preliminary report from a single institution, noninferiority, prospective randomized controlled trial is conducted to determine the effectiveness of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) versus microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) for the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
methodsThis prospective, noncrossover, randomized controlled trials was conducted at a single neurosurgical center. Patients with symptomatic radiculopathy or intermittent neurogenic claudication caused by LDH were enrolled from July 2016 to July 2021. The study compared the effectiveness of microscopic and full-endoscopic discectomy procedures. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, radiologic measurements, endurance time of walking, and satisfaction rate.
resultsOf 37 assessed patients, both IELD and MLD groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores for pain over time, with no significant difference between them. For secondary outcomes, the IELD group had a shorter hospital stay and reduced blood loss but a longer operation time than the MLD group. Radiographic evaluations showed no change compared to preoperative data. Patient satisfaction and recovery rates were slightly higher for the MLD group, but both groups were comparable in most evaluations, with complications being minimal.
conclusionThe IELD was noninferior in improving the intensity of back and leg pain and functional disability, compared to the MLD. Additionally, the IELD showed no difference in clinical outcomes for patients in terms of radiographic results and patient satisfaction rates. The results of this research preliminarily demonstrate that the IELD could be considered an effective alternative to MLD for L5-S1 central or paracentral LDH.
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.