ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Lumbar percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective survey on the first 172 adult patients treated in Denmark.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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.
- Operative time, recurrence, and complications throughout the initial learning curve in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy.Acta neurochirurgica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate patient demographics, surgery characteristics, and patient-reported clinical outcomes related to the implementation of lumbar PTED in Denmark by surgeons novice to the PTED technique.
methodsAll adult patients treated with a lumbar PTED from our first surgery in October 2020 to December 2021 were included. Data was generated by journal audit and telephone interview.
resultsA total of 172 adult patients underwent lumbar PTED. Surgery duration was a median of 45.0 (35.0-60.0) minutes and patients were discharged a median of 0 (0-1.0) days after. Per operatively one procedure was converted to open microdiscectomy due to profuse bleeding. Post operatively one patient complained of persistent headache (suggestive of a dural tear), two patients developed new L5 paresthesia, and three patients had a newly developed dorsal flexion paresis (suggestive of a root lesion). Sixteen patients did not complete follow-up and 24 (14.0%) underwent reoperation of which 54.2% were due to residual disk material. Among the remaining 132 patients, lower back and leg pain decreased from 7.0 (5.0-8.5) to 2.5 (1.0-4.5) and from 8.0 (6.0-9.1) to 2.0 (0-3.6) at follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). Additionally, 93.4% returned to work and 78.8% used less analgesics. Post hoc analysis comparing the early half of cases with the latter half did not find any significant change in surgery time, complication and reoperation rates, nor in pain relief, return to work, or analgesia use.
conclusionClinical improvements after lumbar PTED performed by surgeons novel to the technique are satisfactory, although the reoperation rate is high, severe complications may occur, and the learning curve can be longer than expected.
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.