ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Biochemical Markers Following Tubular Microscopic Discectomy Versus Full Endoscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Global spine journal, 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
Study DesignProspective randomized controlled trial.ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes and biochemical markers in patients undergoing tubular microscopic discectomy (TMD) versus full endoscopic discectomy (FED).MethodsThis prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary spine center between February 2022 and December 2023. A total of 209 patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniation were randomized using a sealed opaque envelope allocation method to undergo either FED or TMD. For subgroup analysis, FED cases were stratified into interlaminar (IL-FED) and transforaminal (TF-FED) approaches. Clinical outcomes were systematically evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up intervals. Biochemical markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and creatine phosphokinase-MM (CPK-MM) were measured preoperatively and at 24 hours postoperatively to assess muscle injury and inflammatory response. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and time to return to work.ResultsBoth groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in VAS and ODI scores across all follow-up intervals. Although baseline VAS differed statistically between groups, the magnitude of this difference was not clinically meaningful and did not influence postoperative outcomes. The FED group demonstrated significantly better ODI and MacNab scores, reflecting improved functional recovery and patient satisfaction. Postoperative CRP and CPK-MM levels were significantly lower in the FED group, indicating reduced paraspinal muscle injury and systemic inflammatory response.ConclusionBoth TMD and FED are effective treatment modalities. However, FED is associated with reduced muscle injury and accelerated postoperative recovery.
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.