ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Clinical efficacy and impact on sexual function of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of male lumbar disc herniation complicated with cauda equina syndrome.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the surgical efficacy of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) versus Interlaminar Fenestration Decompression (IFD) in treating male patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation (LDH) complicated with Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES), and to evaluate their impact on sexual function.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on male patients with LDH complicated with CES who underwent PELD or IFD at Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from January 2014 to December 2022. The patients were divided into PELD group and IFD group based on the surgical procedure. Surgical efficacy was assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Sexual function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT), and the International Spinal Cord Injury Male Sexual Function Basic Data Set.
resultsA total of 98 patients were included (47 in the PELD group and 51 in the IFD group). Perioperative Indicators: The PELD group showed significant advantages over the IFD group in intraoperative blood loss (15.84 ± 5.31 ml vs. 42.56 ± 12.79 ml, P < 0.001), incision length (0.74 ± 0.17 cm vs. 4.53 ± 0.81 cm, P < 0.001), and time to ambulation (24.52 ± 6.28 h vs. 46.84 ± 10.57 h, P < 0.001), and did not require drainage. Clinical Efficacy: At 1 month postoperatively, the PELD group had lower low back pain and leg pain VAS scores (3.12 ± 1.24/3.57 ± 1.36 vs. IFD group), higher JOA scores (15.84 ± 2.81), and lower ODI indices (35.57 ± 5.81%) (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in pain and function scores between the two groups at 2 years postoperatively (P > 0.05). Impact on Sexual Function: At 3 months postoperatively, the PELD group had significantly higher IIEF-5 scores (15.88 ± 3.21), psychogenic erection normal rate (38.30%), and orgasm normal rate (40.43%) than the IFD group (P < 0.05). Sexual function recovered to similar levels in both groups at 2 years postoperatively (IIEF-5 score > 20, P > 0.05).
conclusionPELD demonstrates advantages of minimal trauma, faster early pain relief, and quicker functional recovery compared with IFD in the treatment of LDH complicated with CES, and exerts more significant early protective effects on male sexual function, while the long-term efficacy is comparable between the two procedures. This technique can be an option for male CES patients seeking rapid recovery and sexual function protection.
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.