Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40155927›Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2025

Comparative efficacy and safety of three surgical procedures for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a Bayesian-based network analysis.

Shichao Liu, Jingyu Zhou

Abstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A 7-year minimum follow-up of the M6-L total disk replacement for low back pain with radiculopathy in young railway employees: a retrospective single-center study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Moderate discrimination but attenuated predictive precision: a multi-model external validation of prolonged postoperative length of stay models after lumbar interbody fusion in an independent cohort.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. [Lumbar disc herniation].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  6. Endoscopic lumbar decompression in patients with obesity does not correlate with inferior outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

2 authors.

Shichao Liu *Department of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, 350001, China. lsc@fjmu.edu.cn.
Jingyu Zhou *Hospital Administration Office, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, 350004, China.

Funding

Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University 2021QH1037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExisting studies have suggested that the efficacy and safety of tubular microdiscectomy (TMD) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (TED) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) are similar to those of open microdiscectomy (OMD). However, there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) making indirect or integrated comparisons of the efficacy and safety of TMD and TED for LDH. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs was used to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of OMD, TMD and TED for LDH in this research.

methodsWe systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases from their inceptions through March 2023 for eligible literature. The following search terms were used: "transforaminal endoscopic discectomy," "microdiscectomy," "endoscopic," "minimally invasive," "tubular microdiscectomy," "spinal disease," and "randomized clinical trial". The primary outcomes were the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score and the visual analog scale (VAS) score for leg pain, complications, and reoperation. Direct comparison meta-analyses and NMA were carried out.

resultsEight RCTs (1391 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared to OMD, TED has advantages in terms of VAS score (SMD=-1.10 95% CI - 1.85 to -0.34, P = 0.005) and ODI score (SMD=-5.17 95% CI - 8.04 to -2.31, P = 0.004). In contrast, the comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between TMD and OMD across all outcome measures. By comparing TED to OMD and TMD to OMD, it was found that there was no significant difference in the complication and reoperation rates. NMA indicated that there was no significant difference in any of the outcomes between TED and TMD. Trend analyses of rank probabilities showed the cumulative probabilities of the most effective treatments, as measured by primary outcomes (VAS score, ODI score, reoperation and complication rates), were TED (95%, 77%, 23%, 58%), TMD (4%, 22%, 54%, 36%), and OMD (1%, 1%, 23%, 6%).

conclusionFor LDH, TED outperformed OMD in clinical efficacy, while TMD matched OMD outcomes. All modalities showed similar complication/reoperation rates. Probabilistic analyses revealed TED as preferable for younger patients (enhanced pain control, shorter stays), whereas TMD better suited elderly comorbid patients for reoperation risk mitigation.

Indexed as

DiskectomyDiskectomy, PercutaneousEndoscopyIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraeMicrosurgeryBayes TheoremHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeLumbar disc herniationNetwork meta-analysisPercutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomyRandomized controlled trialTubular microdiscectomy

Identifiers

PMID40155927
PMCPMC11951709

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.