ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression versus posterior short-segment fusion for treating degenerative lumbar scoliosis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a cohort study with a minimum five year followup.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. 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.
- Clinical and imaging impact of diabetes mellitus on elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective propensity score-matched study with ≥5-year follow-up.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Anterior scoliosis correction in patients over forty years: results, complications, prognosis.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor regarding the article "Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression versus posterior short-segment fusion for treating degenerative lumbar scoliosis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a cohort study with a minimum five-year follow-up".International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Risk factors for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after unilateral biportal endoscopy: a retrospective study.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) with those of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
methodsIn this study, 143 DLS patients who met the inclusion criteria from January 2016 to March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into the PTED and PLIF groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to adjust for imbalanced confounding variables between the groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were then used to compare the clinical outcomes between the two groups. Furthermore, changes in radiological characteristics and surgical complications were assessed.
resultsAfter PSM, 86 patients were included in the study with a followup duration of at least five years. Postoperative VAS and ODI scores were significantly improved in both groups at all time points compared with preoperative values (p < 0.001). However, the PTED group had higher VAS scores for back pain and ODI scores than the PLIF group at five years postoperatively (p < 0.05). For radiological parameters, the Cobb angle decreased in the PLIF group but increased in the PTED group at the final followup (p < 0.05). A decrease in the adjacent disc height was observed in the PLIF group at the final followup (p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth PTED and PLIF achieved relatively satisfactory outcomes in treating DLS with LSS after a minimum five year followup. However, further studies are required to better determine the characteristics of spinal deformities amenable to each procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40063116What 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.