ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Clinical study of Microendoscopic Discectomy + Fibrous Ring Suture Versus Microendoscopic Discectomy alone in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in young and middle-aged patients.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Short-term effecetiveness of endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with annular suturing in treatment of lumbar disc herniation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Mechanical and Biological Treatments for Annulus Fibrosus Repair and Closure: A Review of Clinical Studies.Neurospine · 2026Review
- Bone anchoring annular suture technique for repairing annular defects at vertebral body edge following lumbar discectomy.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy + fibrous ring suture versus microendoscopic discectomy alone in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in young and middle-aged patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 66 young and middle-aged patients with single-segment LDH diagnosed in Orthopedic Hospital of Henan Province from October 2019 to October 2022. All patients were divided into two groups: the microendoscopic discectomy + fibrous ring suture group and the microendoscopic discectomy alone group, with 33 cases in each group. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups were recorded before surgery and six and twelve months after surgery. Results: Both groups completed the surgery and postoperative follow-up successfully and showed no statistically significant differences in terms of incision length, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay (all P>0.05). VAS, ODI and JOA scores were significantly improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months after surgery compared with those before surgery (all P<0.05). The two groups were similar in terms of excellent and good rates of postoperative modified MacNab Evaluation Criteria, with no statistically significant differences. No serious complications were observed in the two groups during and after surgery. Conclusion: Both of the two surgical methods are effective in the treatment of LDH in young and middle-aged patients, and microendoscopic discectomy + fibrous ring suture in particular may be preferred because it results in significant improvement in patients' VAS and ODI scores.
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.