ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2026
Comparative Study on Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy under Local Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePosterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for treating cervical radiculopathy. Traditionally, PECF is performed under general anesthesia in the prone position, but concerns over anesthesia-related complications have led to the exploration of local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position as an alternative. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy of PECF performed under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position versus general anesthesia in the prone position.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 patients who underwent PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. The outcomes were compared with data from 357 patients across eight studies who underwent PECF under general anesthesia in the prone position. Outcomes measures included Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), minimally clinically important difference (MCID), and complications.
resultsPatients in the local anesthesia group demonstrated significant reductions in neck pain (VAS-N : 4.93±1.32 to 1.49±0.52, p<0.001) and arm pain (VAS-A : 8.69±0.75 to 1.85±1.46, p<0.001), achieving a mean pain reduction of 78.8%. These improvements were comparable to the general anesthesia group (VAS-N : 4.80 to 1.28; VAS-A : 6.71 to 1.23). Functional outcomes improved significantly in both groups, with ODI scores improving from 54.76% to 9.82% locally and from 39.92% to 9.62% in the general group. Although LOS was slightly longer for the local anesthesia group (5.85±3.20 vs. 4.81±2.17 days, p=0.18), post-procedure monitoring time was significantly shorter (3.2 vs. 7.4 hours, p<0.001). The local anesthesia group reported zero complications (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-22.8%) compared to an 8.68% complication rate (95% CI, 5.8-11.6%) in the general anesthesia cohort (p=0.612).
conclusionPECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position provides comparably effective pain relief and functional improvement comparable to general anesthesia, though the difference in complication rates was not statistically significant and requires larger studies for confirmation. This technique may be particularly advantageous for patients at higher risk for anesthesia-related complications. Further research is warranted to validate these findings in larger, prospective studies.
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.