ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Comparison Between Interlaminar and Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Sciatic Scoliosis Secondary to Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum 1 Year Follow-Up.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of interlaminar and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD and TELD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with sciatic scoliosis.
methodsPatients with sciatic scoliosis secondary to LDH who had undergone IELD or TELD between January 2022 to June 2024 were reviewed. Radiographic parameters, including Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation (AVT), and coronal balance distance (CBD), were measured preoperatively and postoperatively to assess curve evolution. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Meanwhile, perioperative data were also collected. Comparisons between the groups were made by independent t-tests and χ
resultsA total of 134 patients in the IELD group and 103 patients in the TELD group were included in this study. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (13.4 ± 7.8 mL vs. 11.5 ± 7.1 mL, p = 0.067) and postoperative length of stay (2.5 ± 0.6 days vs. 2.5 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.378) between the two groups; however, the IELD group demonstrated shorter operation time (87.2 ± 17.4 min vs. 96.1 ± 23.3 min, p = 0.001) and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times (4.9 ± 0.7 vs. 10.3 ± 2.7, p < 0.001) compared to the TELD group. Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores (p < 0.05), with no significant differences between the groups. Before surgery, 86.9% (206/237) patients had a disc herniation at the convex side of the lumbosacral curve and 86.5% (205/237) patients showed a trunk shift toward the opposite side of disc herniation. After surgery, 91.8% (123/134) of the IELD group and 90.3% (93/103) of the TELD group achieved resolution of scoliosis (AVT ≤ 10 mm) within 12 months. At the final follow-up, the AVT, Cobb angle, CBD, and SVA in the IELD group were 2.7 ± 2.0 mm, 1.0° ± 0.8°, 1.2 ± 0.9 mm, and 3.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively, with no significant differences compared to the 2.8 ± 2.7 mm, 1.1° ± 0.8°, 1.2 ± 0.8 mm, and 3.7 ± 3.5 mm in the TELD group.
conclusionsBoth IELD and TELD are effective and safe for LDH with sciatic scoliosis, with comparable radiographic and clinical outcomes in terms of scoliosis correction. IELD is associated with shorter operation time and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times in this cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42885877What 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.