Trial reportBMC surgery2026
Comparison of novel double-needle puncture technique to the conventional TESSYS technique in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: enhanced efficiency and reduced radiation exposure.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is an effective minimally invasive treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Establishing a precise working channel is critical for success but is technically demanding with the conventional transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) technique, often requiring multiple fluoroscopic attempts.
objectiveThis randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a novel double-needle puncture technique against the conventional TESSYS technique for PELD in treating L4-L5 single-segment LDH.
methodsSixty patients were randomly allocated to the double-needle group (n = 30) or the TESSYS group (n = 30). The novel technique utilized a rigid spoon-shaped needle and a flexible pen-tip needle for tandem puncture. Primary outcomes were the number of fluoroscopic shots, puncture time (from needle insertion to target exposure under endoscopy), and total surgery duration. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and complication rates.
resultsThe double-needle group demonstrated significant reductions in puncture time (8.4 ± 4.5 vs. 15.1 ± 7.4 min, P < 0.001), number of fluoroscopic shots (5.8 ± 1.3 vs. 9.6 ± 3.7, P < 0.001), and total surgery time (62.9 ± 24.5 vs. 81.9 ± 33.6 min, P = 0.015). VAS scores for back and leg pain were significantly lower in the double-needle group at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), with no significant difference at 1 year. The rate of required foraminoplasty was lower in the double-needle group (13.3% vs. 36.7%). Complication rates were comparable.
conclusionFor L4-L5 LDH, the double-needle puncture technique improves surgical efficiency by reducing operative time and fluoroscopy exposure compared to the conventional TESSYS technique, with associated benefits in early-to-mid-term postoperative pain. It represents a simpler and potentially safer alternative for establishing the working channel in PELD.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500096847). Retrospectively Registered on 07-02-2025.
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.