ArticleScientific reports2026
Propensity score-matched analysis of percutaneous endoscopic versus conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation in high-risk octogenarians.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) under local anesthesia with multidisciplinary team (MDT) support versus conservative treatment in ultra-elderly (≥ 85 years) high-risk patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This retrospective study included 64 patients who underwent PETD and 64 propensity score-matched controls receiving conservative treatment. Propensity scores were generated using 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching without replacement (caliper = 0.02) based on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), number of comorbidities, herniated level, symptom duration, baseline Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), along with Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes included VAS for back/leg pain, ODI, modified Macnab criteria, crossover surgery rate, and complications. The mean follow-up duration was 14.2 ± 3.1 months in the PETD group and 13.8 ± 4.2 months in the conservative group. The PETD group showed significantly greater improvement in leg pain VAS and ODI at 3 months and 1 year (P < 0.01). The excellent/good rate was 95.31% vs. 31.25% (P < 0.001). In the conservative group, 28.13% crossed over to surgery. Under MDT management, 90.6% received medication optimization, with early ambulation (3.40 ± 0.88 h) and short hospital stay (2.34 ± 0.47 days). No serious complications occurred. Multivariate analysis confirmed that the treatment group was independently associated with an excellent or good Macnab outcome (OR = 25.6, 95%CI 8.4–78.1, P < 0.001) after adjusting for CFS and CCI. MDT-supported PETD under local anesthesia is safe and effective for ultra-elderly high-risk LDH patients, offering superior outcomes and rapid recovery compared to conservative treatment.
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.