ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Recompression after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: risk factors and outcomes of two different reoperation procedures.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus endoscopic foraminoplasty decompression for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- A preoperative nomogram for predicting 2-year postoperative recurrence after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Association Between Spinopelvic Alignment and Reoperation Following Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression: A Matched Case-Control Study.Journal of pain research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the risk factors for recompression after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) and compare the outcomes of PTED and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) as revision surgery. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 820 consecutive DLSS patients who underwent PTED at our institution. 26 patients developed postoperative recompression and underwent reoperation. In total, 208 patients with satisfactory clinical outcomes were enrolled in the control group. The demographic and imaging data of each patient were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors for recompression. Additionally, patients with recompression were divided into PTED and PLIF groups according to the reoperation procedure. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared using independent-sample t-tests. Results: The grade of surgical-level disc degeneration [odds ratio (OR): 2.551, Conclusion: More severe degeneration and degenerated levels indicate a higher recompression rate after PTED. Although both PTED and PLIF could achieve immediate relief postoperatively in the treatment of recompression, the final follow-up results showed that the outcome of PLIF appeared better than that of PTED.
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.