Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40242820›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025

The utilization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Saiganesh Ravikumar, Aaron Bloschichak, Sanjeev Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Letter to Editor: Practice preference of revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: an international survey of AO spine members.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
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

3 authors.

Saiganesh RavikumarDepartment of Anesthesiology, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9735-4475
Aaron BloschichakDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
Sanjeev KumarDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The utilization of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is well established as a safe, effective intervention. However, in approximately 5-15% of cases herniation recurs. The role of PELD at this juncture is not well established in literature. The aim of this study is to identify the usability of PELD in comparison to other minimally invasive options to treat recurrent lumbar herniated disc. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Studies with less than 10 patients, published abstracts without full texts, and systematic review papers were excluded. Both transforaminal (TF) and interlaminar (IL) approaches were included. A risk of bias assessment was performed for each study. Results: A total of 614 non-duplicate articles resulted. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 20 papers were selected. Eleven studies were cohort, 1 study was randomized controlled trial, 8 studies were case-series. There were a total of 1,162 patients and 1,165 discs operated on. 714 (61.3%) surgeries were at level L4-5, 390 (33.4%) surgeries were at level L5-S1, and 62 (5.32%) surgeries were at other lumbar levels. 15 studies reported average visual analog scale (VAS) scores or Numerical Rating Score (NRS) of back and leg pain. Pooled weighted averages illustrated a 5.24-point improvement in VAS back scores and a similar 5.26-point improvement in VAS leg scores. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was reported in 5 studies with a pooled weighted average ODI showing an improvement of 20.88 units. All studies reported complications encountered, and the pooled rate across studies were: dural tear (n=10, 0.88%), infection (n=1, 0.09%), transient dysesthesia (n=13, 1.14%), transient headache (n=5, 0.44%), instability (n=8, 0.70%), persistent leg pain (n=7, 0.62%), transient weakness (n=1, 0.09%) permanent neurologic deficit (n=1, 0.09%). Seventeen studies (85%) reported re-recurrence rates of herniated disc after PELD, with a total of 58 recurrences out of 1,018 discs, or 5.70% pooled recurrence rate. A meta-analysis revealed there is currently no evidence of clearly superior approach for managing recurrent LDH between open lumbar microdiscectomy, minimally invasive trans-lumbar interbody fusion, microendoscopic discectomy, and IL Conclusions: PELD is a safe, effective technique in the treatment of recurrent LDH. Clinical judgment is required at this time to identify the best surgical modality of management for each patient.

Indexed as

endoscopic spine surgeryherniated disc recurrenceMinimally invasive spine surgeryminimally invasive trans lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD)

Identifiers

PMID40242820
PMCPMC11998055

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.