ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of the efficacy of microendoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for treating adolescent lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy and safety of annulus fibrosus suture as adjuvant therapy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Pooled it
- Pediatric lumbosacral disc herniation: risk factors, surgical outcomes, and the potential impact of the lockdown associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Early biochemical muscle injury and one-year clinical and imaging outcomes following microsurgical versus endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A prospective comparative study.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive vs. microscopic discectomy for adolescent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study of clinical and spinopelvic outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Endoscopic spine surgery across the pediatric pathological spectrum: A systematic review of indications, techniques, and outcomes.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- The Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupuncture Stimulation on Postoperative Pain Control and Mobility in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Trial.Journal of pain research · 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
Abstract
Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) has long been employed as the standard operation for adolescent lumbar disc herniation (ALDH). However, due to iatrogenic injury, it has been suspected to cause adverse effects. Alternatively, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is considered as effective as MED. Few studies have compared MED and PELD in the treatment of ALDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the possible differences in young patients who underwent MED or PELD. From January 2011 to January 2021, 49 consecutive patients were treated with MED (17 patients) or PELD (32 patients) at the authors institution. Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria demonstrated significant improvement in both early and late follow-up evaluations (P < 0.01). PELD group resulted in shorter operative times and lower re-operation and complication rate. The PELD group exhibited shorter incision length, length of hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss than the MED group. Both PELD and MED have demonstrated great efficacy in managing symptomatic ALDH. PELD appears to offer superior control over surgical trauma and promotes rapid recovery compared to MED.
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.