ArticlePeerJ2026
Interlaminar endoscopic discectomy for recurrent L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniation.
Article in PeerJ, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is associated with epidural scarring and postoperative segmental instability. Endoscopic surgery is associated with better clarity, organised identification, fewer tissue lesions, and quicker recovery than open revision. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for patients with RLDH at L4-5 and L5-S1. Methods: A total of 64 consecutive patients with RLDH underwent full endoscopic interlaminar discectomy between June 2022 and December 2024. Clinical outcomes were measured Results: Significant improvements in VAS for back and leg pain and the ODI were observed post-treatment. Based on the modified MacNab criteria, 56 out of 64 patients demonstrated excellent and good, four cases in fair and four cases in poor at the 2-year follow-up. Conclusion: PEID yields favourable clinical outcomes in patients with RLDH at L4-5 and L5-S1 within this cohort.
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.