ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Comparison of outcomes in open and full endoscopic lumbar discectomies for treating lumbar radiculopathy in an Australian cohort.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has evolved as a new minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach to the lumbar spine. ESS allows smaller incisions, less paraspinal muscle splitting and surgical trauma compared to conventional open and MIS approaches. We present the first non-inferiority comparison of ESS and open approaches to treat lumbar radiculopathy in an Australian cohort. The aim of this study is to assess if ESS is non-inferior to open approaches for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy in post operative outcomes of pain and disability scores, in order to address the paucity in data for outcomes of ESS in Australian patients. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, routinely collected prospective data were collated from consecutive patients who had single level endoscopic discectomies for radiculopathy by two surgeons at a single institution between December 2020 and October 2022. Data collected included Visual Analogue Scores for Back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L) pain as well as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, length of stay (LOS) and complication rates. These were compared to data from consecutive patients who underwent open discectomies from August 2020 to September 2022 by the same surgeons at other private hospitals where the endoscope was unavailable, otherwise deemed suitable for either approach, allowing direct comparison of consecutive patients operated on for comparable pathologies differentiated only by equipment availability. Results: Analysis included 92 endoscopic and 97 open cases. Non-inferiority was established at 6-week with median VAS-L (1.0 Conclusions: ESS is non-inferior to open decompression for the management of lumbar radiculopathy up to 6 months. LOS was also found to be lower in ESS. There were fewer complications with ESS however this was not statistically significant.
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.