ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Comparison of clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy and arthroscopy-assisted unilateral spinal surgery for lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The growing emphasis on enhanced recovery and reduced morbidity has accelerated the clinical adoption of endoscopic and percutaneous techniques to treat lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, safety profiles, and learning curves between the percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and the arthroscopy-assisted unilateral spinal surgery (AUSS) in patients with LDH. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 60 patients who underwent either PEID ( Results: Both PEID and AUSS groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS and ODI ( Conclusion: Both the PEID and the AUSS groups show significant alleviation of pain and improvement of motor function after operation, few surgical complications and few postoperative recurrence, without intergroup difference. In addition, the AUSS group had significantly decreased operation time and significantly increased length of stay.
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.