ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Classification of inferior articular process injury after percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy based on CT three-dimensional reconstruction and its clinical significance.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo propose a new classification method based on CT three-dimensional reconstruction for inferior articular process injury following percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy (PEID), and to analyze the impact of > 50% inferior articular process(IAP) defect on clinical outcomes.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 100 PEID patients. IAP injuries were classified into four types based on CT three-dimensional reconstruction, and the inter- and intra-observer reliability was assessed using the Kappa consistency test. Patients were divided into two groups based on IAP defect size: Group A (defect ≤ 50%) and Group B (defect > 50%). VAS, ODI, clinical outcomes, and lumbar instability were compared between the two groups, and IAP changes were observed.
resultsThe classification showed good inter- and intra-observer consistency. There were no significant differences in VAS, ODI, clinical outcomes, or lumbar instability between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed varying degrees of IAP regeneration and remodeling.
conclusionThe classification of IAP injuries based on CT three-dimensional reconstruction demonstrates good inter- and intra-observer consistency. In the short term, patients with > 50% IAP defects (Types III and IV) show no difference in lumbar stability or clinical outcomes compared to those with ≤ 50% defects (Types I and II).However, for patients with complete IAP loss (Type IV), the potential long-term risk of lumbar instability and related clinical complications remains a concern.
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.