ArticleBrain & spine2025
Evaluating the learning curve and operative time of interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of clinical effectiveness between interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 highly migrated lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study with a minimum one year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Learning curve in full-endoscopic lumbar surgery for disc herniation in a spine clinic in Mexico: Comparative analysis of IELD and TELD techniques.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Review of the Surgical Techniques, Indications and Anatomical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Initial Experience of Transforaminal Lumbar Endoscopic Discectomy in a Single Orthopedics Unit.Cureus · 2025Article
- Large-Channel Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy for Highly Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: Effectiveness and Safety.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Intra-operative fluoroscopy exposure in endoscopic lumbar discectomies.Surgical neurology international · 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
Introduction: Lumbar disc herniation is common in spine surgery, and endoscopic lumbar discectomy (ELD) offers a minimally invasive alternative with reduced complications. However, the learning curve of ELD, particularly between interlaminar and transforaminal techniques, remains a challenge. Research question: To determine the learning curve for both interlaminar and transforaminal ELD in terms of operative time, and analyze factors that affect it. Materials and methods: Single-center retrospective study of 376 patients who underwent ELD between January 2013 and March 2024. In the cohort, 319 were in the interlaminar group and 57 in the transforaminal group. The learning curves were analyzed by CUSUM. The data regarding surgical technique, operative time, and postoperative outcome were analyzed. Results: The learning curve reached a plateau at 50 cases for the interlaminar technique and 23 cases for the transforaminal technique. Operative time was significantly lower for the transforaminal approach compared to the interlaminar approach: 69.18 ± 28.85 min versus 78.71 ± 28.86 min, p = 0.022. A second learning curve could not be demonstrated for the interlaminar approach in the long term. Operative time was influenced variably by factors such as age, gender, and level of herniated disc between the two techniques. Discussion and conclusion: Both the interlaminar and transforaminal ELD are minimally invasive techniques with different learning curves. The transforaminal approach shows a steeper learning curve and shorter operative time. The interlaminar approach did not show a second learning curve in the long term.
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.