Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39533378›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus open fenestration discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with more than 5 years of follow-up.

Tusheng Li, Junyou Zhang, Zhili Ding, Qiang Jiang, Yu Ding

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Risk Factor Analysis of Residual Low Back Pain After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy in Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tusheng LiOrthopedics of TCM Senior Dept, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, 6 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-2123
Junyou ZhangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Suining Central Hospital, 127 Desheng West Road, Suining, 629000, Sichuan Province, People's Republic of China.
Zhili DingOrthopedics of TCM Senior Dept, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, 6 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.
Qiang JiangOrthopedics of TCM Senior Dept, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, 6 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.
Yu DingOrthopedics of TCM Senior Dept, The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, 6 Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China. cosmos_dingyu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6306-3768

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82274637
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe compared the long-term outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with those of open fenestration discectomy (OFD) in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

methods281 patients were included from January 2013 to December 2018, of whom 228 underwent PELD and 53 underwent OFD. General information of patients was collected and imbalances in covariates between groups were corrected using propensity score matching (PSM). Then, the clinical function scores, imaging data, and complications were compared.

resultsAmong participants, 102 patients were successfully matched and were followed for 62-128 months. Compared to the OFD group, the PELD group indicated greater improvements in visual analog scale score of low back pain (VAS-BP), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 7 days postoperatively and the last follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months postoperatively and the last follow-up, the disc height index (DHI), ratio of grays (RVG), and range of motion (ROM) were higher and the compass value was lower (P < 0.05) in the PELD group compared to the OFD group, suggesting that the PELD procedure better maintained the mobility and stability of the responsible segment after surgery. The recurrence rates between the PELD (9.80%) and OFD (7.84%) groups did not reveal statistical differences (P > 0.05).

conclusionPELD and OFD both provide acceptable clinical outcomes for LDH. However, PELD is superior to OFD in terms of relieving low back pain, delaying disc degeneration, and maintaining segmental stability.

Indexed as

Diskectomy, PercutaneousEndoscopyIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraePropensity ScoreAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeDiscectomyLong-term efficacyLumbar disc herniationPropensity score matchingRecurrence rate

Identifiers

PMID39533378
PMCPMC11559210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.