ArticleBMC surgery2026
Different surgical approaches for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: analysis of clinical and imaging outcomes.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectiveWe compared the clinical efficacy of different surgical approaches for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) after percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD).
methodsEighty-seven patients with RLDH were included between June 2013 and June 2022, of whom 38 underwent percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and 49 underwent PETD again. We compared perioperative variables as well as clinical and imaging outcomes. Clinical evaluations consisted of visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-B) and leg pain (VAS-L), Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA), and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Imaging measurements consisted of disc height index (DHI), range of motion (ROM), and sagittal translation (ST).
resultsCompared to the PETD group, the PEID group presented shorter operative time and fewer fluoroscopy times (P < 0.05); nevertheless, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, incision length, and the complication rate showed no significant between-group difference (P > 0.05). Both groups showed significant clinical improvement postoperatively (P < 0.05). At 7 days after surgery, VAS-B, VAS-L, JOA, and ODI showed greater improvement in the PEID group compared with the PETD group (P < 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences in imaging data (P > 0.05). Postoperative ROM and ST remained below instability thresholds, and no lumbar instability was observed.
conclusionFor patients with RLDH after PETD, both PEID and PETD achieve satisfactory clinical efficacy. PEID provides advantages over PETD by reducing operative time and fluoroscopy, and is effective in avoiding scar tissue formation from initial surgery. These findings suggest that PEID may be preferable in selected recurrent cases, particularly where scar tissue or anatomical barriers compromise transforaminal access.
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.