ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
The effect of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy vs. percutaneous nucleoplasty in patients with cervical radicular pain due to a single-level contained soft-disc herniation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervical radicular pain (CRP) is a common disorder among adults. Minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PPECD) and percutaneous cervical nucleoplasty (PCN) are considered when conservative treatment fails to contain severe persistent pain. Our retrospective study evaluated the clinical outcomes of CRP in patients treated with PPECD and PCN.
methodsBetween May 2019 and June 2021, 67 patients with CRP, due to single-level contained soft-disc herniation, were treated with either PPECD or PCN. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the numerical rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and modified Macnab criteria. Pre- and postoperative clinical parameters were also compared.
resultsCompared with the preoperative values, the mean NRS scores for radicular arm pain and NDI score improved significantly with both treatments. According to the Macnab criteria, patients with PPECD (82.9%) had a higher clinical success rate than patients with PCN (75.0%), however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5508). No major complications were observed in any patients.
conclusionsBoth PPECD and PCN are effective and safe options for CRP patients with persistent, and severe pain. Given the absence of superiority in pain relief and clinical outcomes with PPECD, we suggest that the shorter operation time and the less invasive features of PCN is an alternative to PPECD in patients with single-level contained soft-disc herniation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.