Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252307›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy using a 45° puncture angle and foraminotomy versus traditional THESYS for L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Yuxuan Qian, Zhiheng Chen, Guowang Zhang, Xin Wang, Ji Liu, Aofei Yang, Jianguang Xu, Xiaofeng Lian

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuxuan Qian *Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Zhiheng Chen *Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Guowang Zhang *Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Xin WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Ji LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Aofei YangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, People's Republic of China.
Jianguang XuDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. jianguangxu2004@aliyun.com.
Xiaofeng LianDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. xf909@126.com.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai Sixth People's Hospital · CNHubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

Shanghai Municipal Health Commission 202040189Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine ynhg202003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProspective comparison of the efficacy and safety of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) with a 45° puncture angle versus traditional Thomas Hoogland endoscopy spine systems (THESYS) for the surgical treatment of L5/S1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

methodsConsecutive patients with L5/S1 LDH who underwent TELD were randomized (1:1) assigned to the 45° TELD group and the THESYS group. Clinical outcomes were assessed at pre-operation, 1-day and 3/6-months post-operation till final follow-up. Surgical-related parameters, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria, and surgical complications were recorded and analysed.

resultsAll patients were followed up for at least 24 months. Compared to the THESYS group, the 45° TELD group had a shorter operative time (P < 0.001) and intraoperative radiation time (P < 0.001) and a smaller VAS score for back pain (P < 0.001) and leg pain intraoperatively (P < 0.001). The VAS and ODI in the 45° TELD group were significantly better than those in the THESYS group within 3 months postoperatively. However, from 3 months on, both groups showed comparable VAS and ODI. There was no significant difference between the two groups of modified MacNab criteria. There were two cases of residual disc and two cases of recurrence that required reoperation in the THESYS group.

conclusionFor L5/S1 LDH, the 45° TELD technique was superior to traditional THESYS in terms of surgery-related parameters and faster improvement of VAS and ODI, with a lower complication rate.

Indexed as

ForaminotomyIntervertebral Disc DisplacementDiskectomyEndoscopyHumansLumbar VertebraeSpinal Puncture45° transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomyForaminotomyLumbar disc herniationThomas Hoogland endoscopy spine systems

Identifiers

PMID38252307
OpenAlexW4391101733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.