ArticleBMC surgery2024
Comparative study of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression and traditional revision surgery in the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
- Comparative study of the learning curves for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy techniques.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Establishing a Staging System for Adjacent Segment Disease and Exploring Its Significance in Guiding Surgical Decisions: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Integrated Optical and Magnetic Navigation for Simplified Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Novel Approach.Neurospine · 2025Article
- New-Occurrence of Postoperative Modic Changes and Its Influence on the Surgical Prognosis After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Disc Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes and complications of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression (PELD) and traditional revision surgery in treating symptomatic Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD). This comparison aims to delineate the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, assisting spine surgeons in making informed surgical decisions.
methods66 patients with symptomatic ASD who failed conservative treatment for more than 1 month and received repeated lumbar surgery were retrospectively collected in the study from January 2015 to November 2018, with the average age of 65.86 ± 11.04 years old. According to the type of surgery they received, all the patients were divided in 2 groups, including 32 patients replaced the prior rod in Group A and 34 patients received PELD at the adjacent level in Group B. Patients were followed up routinely and received clinical and radiological evaluation at 3, 6, 12 months and yearly postoperatively. Complications and hospital costs were recorded through chart reviews.
resultsThe majority of patients experienced positive surgical outcomes. However, three cases encountered complications. Notably, Group B patients demonstrated superior pain relief and improved postoperative functional scores throughout the follow-up period, alongside reduced hospital costs (P < 0.05). Additionally, significant reductions in average operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were observed in Group B (P < 0.05). Notwithstanding these benefits, three patients in Group B experienced disc re-herniation and underwent subsequent revision surgeries.
conclusionsWhile PELD offers several advantages over traditional revision surgery, such as reduced operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay, it also presents a higher likelihood of requiring subsequent revision surgeries. Future studies involving a larger cohort and extended follow-up periods are essential to fully assess the relative benefits and drawbacks of these surgical approaches for ASD.
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.