SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Full-endoscopic lumbar spine discectomy: in search of the optimal approach-a meta-analysis comparing interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD).
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, and to identify factors that guide the selection of the optimal surgical approach.
methodsA comprehensive systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies published from 2013 to 2024. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies comparing interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in adult patients aged 18 years and older. Primary clinical outcomes evaluated included operative duration, radiation exposure, postoperative pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, functional disability assessed via the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complication rates, reoperation rates, and length of hospital stay. Data synthesis was conducted using a random-effects model, with subgroup analyses stratified by operative spinal level and study design.
resultsA total of 17 studies involving 2,066 patients (TELD = 1,040; IELD = 1,026) met the inclusion criteria. TELD was associated with faster recovery and earlier mobilization, particularly in randomized studies. IELD was linked to shorter operative times and significantly lower radiation exposure, whereas TELD tended to result in reduced postoperative back pain, likely due to better preservation of anatomical structures. No significant differences were observed in complication or recurrence rates between the two approaches. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies limited the generalizability of these findings.
conclusionsBoth TELD and IELD are effective and safe surgical options for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, each offering distinct advantages in operative parameters and clinical outcomes. Current evidence does not conclusively favor one approach over the other. A major limitation in drawing definitive comparisons is the scarcity of large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials involving homogeneous patient populations.
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.