ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
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.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Is percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy necessary for learning the unilateral biportal endoscopy technique?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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes and patient satisfaction between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for the treatment of foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations. Methods: A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted, including patients diagnosed with foraminal or extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations who underwent PELD or MED between January 2014 and December 2021. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and perioperative data were analyzed. Primary outcomes included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and improvement rates for functional status, and overall satisfaction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Results: A total of 133 patients were included in the final analysis. The PELD group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in VAS scores for low back pain (6.74 ± 1.21 to 1.95 ± 0.42) compared to the MED group (6.93 ± 1.17 to 2.35 ± 0.89) at the 2-year follow-up ( Conclusion: Both PELD and MED demonstrated efficacy in treating foraminal and extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations over a 2-year follow-up period. PELD, however, exhibited superior relief of low back pain. Factors, such as low back pain intensity, surgical costs, and symptom recurrence significantly impacted patient dissatisfaction, despite comparable overall satisfaction rates between the two surgical techniques.
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.