ArticleCureus2024
Large-Scale Comparative Study Between Microendoscopic Laminectomy and Full-Endoscopic Laminectomy for the Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Full-endoscopic Laminotomy Is Effective for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Low-grade Spondylolisthesis: A Comparative Cohort Study.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Full-endoscopic Spine Surgery for the Treatment of Far-out Syndrome: A Case Series.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Full-Endoscopic Spinal Canal Decompression After Direct Midline Splitting of the Spinous Process: A Technical Note.Cureus · 2025Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously compared the operative outcomes of microendoscopic laminectomy (MEL) and full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for single-level lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). In this initial report, the operative outcomes of FEL were not inferior to those of MEL.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of MEL and FEL for single-level LSCS on a large scale using widely used multiple evaluation methods.
methodsMEL was performed using a 16 mm tubular retractor and an endoscope, while FEL was performed using a 6.4 mm working channel endoscope. A retrospective study was performed on patients with LSCS treated with MEL (n = 355) or FEL (n = 154). Patient background and operative data were also collected. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were recorded preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively.
resultsBackground data of the two groups and the mean operation time (MEL, 72.1 m; FEL, 74.2 m) were not significant (p>0.2). The mean volumes of intraoperative bleeding (MEL, 25.2 ml; FEL, 10.3 ml) were significantly different (p<0.001). The mean postoperative hospital stays (MEL, 3.9 days; FEL, 2.1 days) were significantly different (p<0.001). Fifteen dural tears (MEL, 11; FEL, 4) and 1 surgical site infection (MEL, 1; FEL, 0) were observed but not significant (p>0.5). Reoperation was required for postoperative hematoma in five patients (MEL, 3; FEL, 2). Although the ODI, EQ-5D, and SF-36 scores improved significantly at one year postoperatively in the MEL and FEL groups (p<0.001), there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.1).
conclusionThe operative outcomes and minimal invasiveness were no statistical difference between the MEL and FEL groups. Further development of the operative techniques and the instruments of FEL are required to shorten the operation time.
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.