ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparison of clinical effectiveness between interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy for L4/5 highly migrated lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study with a minimum one year follow-up.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interlaminar versus transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD versus TELD) in treating L4/5 highly migrated lumbar disc herniation (HM-LDH), and to analyze factors influencing surgical approach selection.
methodsFrom January 2022 to June 2024, patients with L4/5 HM-LDH treated with IELD or TELD were retrospectively included. Patients were divided into two groups based on the approach used: IELD (under general anesthesia) and TELD (under local anesthesia with intravenous sedation). Baseline data, perioperative data, radiological data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria were recorded. All data were compared and analyzed by independent t-tests and χ² tests.
resultsThere were 50 patients in the IELD group and 80 patients in the TELD group respectively. The baseline data between the two groups did not show significant difference. The IELD group had relatively wider interlaminar window and thinner intervertebral foramen at L4/5, while there is no significant difference in the height of the intervertebral foramen between the two groups. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative length of stay. However, IELD had a shorter operation time (86.6 ± 12.6 min vs.99.4 ± 27.4 min, P < 0.001) and less fluoroscopy times (4.3 ± 1.1 vs. 11.6 ± 1.9, P < 0.001) compared to TELD. Both groups achieved a significant improvement in VAS and ODI after surgery. Satisfaction rates were 92.0% for IELD and 91.3% for TELD (P = 0.816) according to the modified MacNab criteria. As compared to preoperative measurements, both groups showed a significant reduction in the anteroposterior diameter of the intervertebral disc (APDID) and a significant increase in dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) at 12 months postoperatively. No significant differences in complications were observed between the two groups. Regarding residual symptoms, there were more patients in the TELD group who reported residual back pain (VAS ≥ 2) during the follow-up periods (33.8% vs. 16.0%, P = 0.026).
conclusionBoth IELD and TELD can achieve satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in treating L4/5 HM-LDH. IELD has advantages of shorter operation time, less fluoroscopy times and fewer residual back pain compared with TELD. Selection of surgical approach for L4/5 HM-LDH depends on anatomical structure, migration characteristics, and the operative skills of the surgeon.
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.