ReviewWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2026
Transforaminal vs interlaminar full -endoscopic lumbar discectomy at the L4/L5 level: a systematic review and meta -analysis.
Review in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 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
introductionFull-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (ELD) can be performed using either the transforaminal (TELD) or interlaminar (IELD) approach. Although both techniques are widely used, the optimal approach for the L4/L5 level remains debated. No previous meta-analysis has specifically compared TELD and IELD exclusively for single-level L4/L5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
aimWe aimed to compare clinical and perioperative outcomes of TELD vs IELD for single-level L4/L5 LDH. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched through November 2025. Comparative studies reporting outcomes for TELD and IELD specifically at the L4/L5 level were included. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean differences (MDs), whereas risk ratios (RRs) under a random-effects model were used to analyze binary outcomes.
resultsThree comparative studies including 260 patients undergoing TELD (n = 189) and IELD (n = 71) met the inclusion criteria. Clinical outcomes were comparable between the techniques. Pooled analysis showed no clinically relevant difference in postoperative Visual Analog Scale leg pain (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0-0.63) or Oswestry Disability Index (MD, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.94-2.94). Operative time tended to be shorter with TELD, but the difference was not significant (MD, -12.6 min; 95% CI, -34.6 to 9.4). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was identical between the groups (MD, 0.007 d). Complication (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.23-9.7) and reoperation rates (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.21-4.4) were also similar between the cohorts.
conclusionsTELD and IELD provide equally effective and safe treatment for single-level L4/L5 LDH. Clinical outcomes, LOS, as well as complication and reoperation rates were equivalent. Operative time showed substantial heterogeneity across the studies, precluding a definitive conclusion regarding time efficiency. The choice of approach should be based on patient anatomy, herniation morphology, and surgeon expertise rather than expected differences in technique efficacy.
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.