ArticleNeurosurgery practice2025
The Intertransverse Approach for far Lateral Lumbar Disk Herniation: Case Series of 60 Patients and Review of the Literature.
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe purpose of the present work was to review our series of patients with far lateral disk herniations treated by the intertransverse approach.
methodsPatients undergoing intertransverse approach to treat far-lateral disk herniation by a single surgeon over a 10-year period were identified through the electronic medical record. Additional variables regarding the intraoperative and postoperative course were also collected. Response to treatment was assessed using Odom criteria at the patient's postoperative follow-up.
resultsSixty patients met inclusion criteria. The most frequently treated levels were L3-4 and L4-5 (41.7% and 36.7%, respectively), and 11.7% at L5-S1. The mean age was 56.8 years (SD = 12.6y). Isolated radicular pain was the most common presenting symptom (66%). Two-thirds of patients had mild systemic disease as determined by the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (II). Estimated blood loss ranged from <50 to 600 mL, with a median of 50 mL (IQR 30-120 mL). The mean length of stay was 48h (SD = 46 hours), with 35% of patients (22) undergoing outpatient surgery. The median length of latest postoperative follow-up was 78 days (IQR 34-19 days). Per Odom criteria, most patients had good-to-excellent improvement of preoperative symptoms (80%, N = 48). 8.3% of patients required revision surgery with fusion (N = 5).
conclusionMost patients had good-to-excellent improvement of preoperative symptoms. The paucity of revision procedures in this cohort suggests that the intertransverse approach is durable as it enables direct decompression of the nerve root without destabilizing the motion segment. Further studies are required to compare the efficacy of the intertransverse approach with other approaches.
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.