ArticleJournal of pain research2024
Endoscopic Revision Strategies and Outcomes for Recurrent L4/5 Disc Herniation After Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning Model for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Lumbar Discectomy.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Research advances in unilateral endoscopic spinal surgery for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- The utilization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We explore the endoscopic revision and surgical techniques for L4/5 recurrent disc herniation (rLDH) after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted. From January 2016 to September 2022, 96 patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 rLDH after PETD were enrolled in the study. Based on the revision approach, the patients were divided into PETD group (57 cases) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) group (39 cases). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab standard were recorded to evaluate the clinical outcomes. Results: No significant differences were found in the demographic data and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05), but the time of operation and intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopy exposures in the PEID group were significantly less than that in the PETD group (P<0.05). The patients' postoperative clinical indexes gradually improved, and the VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score of the patients in both groups showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative period at the 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative follow-ups (P < 0.05). There was no serious complication observed during the follow-up. Conclusion: For recurrent LDH after PETD of L4/5 segments, percutaneous endoscopic revision can achieve satisfactory results. Among them, PEID has a shorter operative and fluoroscopy time and allows avoidance of the scar that forms after the initial surgery, so it can be considered preferred when both procedures can remove the disk well. However, for some specific types of herniation, a detailed surgical strategy is required.
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.