Observational studyMedicine2025
Comparison of efficacy between transforaminal and interlaminar endoscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation.
Observational study in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of arthroscopic experience on the learning curve in interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a single-center prospective cohort study of 240 patients.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 · 2026Observational
- Comparison of clinical effectiveness between interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 highly migrated lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study with a minimum one year follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This retrospective study compared the efficacy of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) and interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) for single-level L4-L5 lumbar disc herniation. A total of 208 patients were included, with 101 undergoing TELD and 107 undergoing IELD between August 2022 and August 2024. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Perioperative analysis showed that TELD required a longer operative time and more intraoperative fluoroscopic exposures than IELD, whereas hospital stay and complication rates were similar. At 12-month follow-up, both techniques achieved significant improvements in visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index scores relative to baseline. However, IELD yielded lower residual pain and better functional recovery, reflected by significantly lower final visual analogue scale and Oswestry disability index scores compared with TELD. These findings suggest that both procedures are safe and effective for L4-L5 lumbar disc herniation, but IELD may provide greater surgical efficiency and superior long-term functional outcomes, emphasizing the importance of anatomy-guided approach selection.
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.