ReviewAdvances in orthopedics2026
Endoscopic vs Open Surgeries for Piriformis Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Advances in orthopedics, 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.
- Endoscopic vs Open Surgeries for Piriformis Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Piriformis syndrome (PS) is a neuromuscular condition caused by compression or irritation of the sciatic nerve near the piriformis muscle, resulting in buttock pain that may radiate to the lower limb. Although most patients improve with conservative treatment, some develop refractory PS and require surgery. Endoscopic decompression has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery. This study evaluated the available evidence on surgical outcomes for refractory PS. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and ScienceDirect were searched without year restriction. Because no direct comparative studies between endoscopic and open surgeries were identified, both approaches were analyzed separately. Eligible studies reported pain outcomes using the visual analog scale (VAS) and functional outcomes using the modified Harris hip score (mHHS). Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine endoscopic and three open-surgery studies. Nine studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Pooled analysis of six endoscopic studies showed a significant reduction in VAS (mean difference -4.7; 95% CI -5.2--4.2) and improvement in mHHS (mean difference +25.6; 95% CI +16.0-+35.3). Endoscopic complication rates ranged from 0% to 12% and were mostly minor. Open-surgery evidence was limited and synthesized narratively only. Conclusion: Endoscopic decompression appears to provide favorable outcomes in carefully selected patients with refractory PS. However, definitive superiority over open surgery cannot be established from the current literature.
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.