ArticleScientific reports2024
Prognostic factors for patient-reported satisfaction after percutaneous lumbar endoscopic discectomy at a minimum of two years' follow-Up.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict the achievement of minimal clinically important difference following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Advancing lumbar disc herniation treatment: a prospective study on the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy under local anesthesia, across symptom severity.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Observational
- Arthroscopic-assisted uniportal spinal surgery with annular repair for lumbar disc herniation in hemophilia: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- Comparing mid-term outcomes and patient satisfaction between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microendoscopic discectomy for foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations: a retrospective matched cohort study.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is increasingly used in patients with lumbar disc herniation due to its less invasive nature and faster recovery. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic factors associated with patient satisfaction index (PSI) in PELD. A retrospective study of 337 patients who underwent PELD between November 2015 and October 2020 in our department was conducted. Preoperative data of the enrolled patients were recorded. A logistic regression model was developed to explore the preoperative factors associated with postoperative PSI. After a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 3.6 months, 310 patients were satisfied (NASS score of 1 or 2) and 27 patients were dissatisfied (NASS score of 3 or 4), resulting in a patient satisfaction rate of 91.99%. Demographic data, clinical symptom characteristics, and neurological physical examinations (including lower limb hypesthesia, muscle strength, and tendon flex) did not show any significant differences between the four groups (NASS1,2,3,4). The satisfactory group showed a higher rate of positive Lasegue sign (P = 0.010) and higher preoperative VAS (P = 0.002). The dissatisfaction group showed a higher rate of contiguous double-level disc herniation (P = 0.003). Our findings indicated that positive Lasegue sign and high preoperative VAS were prognostic factors for patient-reported satisfaction and PELD might not be the first choice for contiguous double-level disc herniation.
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.