ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression: Defining Its Scope and Limitations.
Article in International journal of spine 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransforaminal endoscopic lumbar decompression (TELD) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for managing lumbar stenosis and disc herniations. While the literature consistently reports favorable outcomes, real-world adoption remains variable, with discrepancies often linked to surgeon experience and case complexity.
objectiveTo evaluate surgeon perspectives on the clinical applicability of TELD across different pathologies and compare these findings with published evidence.
methodsAn international cross-sectional survey was conducted among spine surgeons. Responses were analyzed using Rasch modeling to assess consensus levels, with agreement categorized as strong, moderate, weak, or disagreement. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and correlation analyses were applied to identify potential bias between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons and to explore associations between pathologies.
resultsAnalysis of 128 surgeon responses demonstrated clear stratification of consensus across pathologies. Strong agreement was observed for
conclusionThese findings suggest that technical proficiency in 1 domain does not necessarily translate to others, emphasizing the need for specialized training in complex or atypical scenarios. Refinement in training and technique positions transforaminal endoscopic surgery to redefine spinal stenosis care, moving past the entrenched notion that its use is confined to foraminal and lateral canal disease while central canal pathology belongs exclusively to interlaminar methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study signals a shift away from the rigid notion that transforaminal endoscopy is limited to compressive painful pathology in the lateral canal while interlaminar approaches are preferable for central stenosis. In expert hands, modern endoscopic techniques demonstrate that low-risk transforaminal decompression can be successfully applied to more complex conditions, including central stenosis with or without low-grade spondylolisthesis. These findings emphasize the importance of advanced training programs to enable practicing spine surgeons to achieve outcomes comparable to those reported by key opinion leaders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Psychometrically validated, high-quality observational survey study (see also Authors' Note).
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.