SynthesisPloS one2023
Safety and clinical efficacy of endoscopic procedures for the treatment of adjacent segmental disease after lumbar fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforaminal Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy Under Local Anesthesia for Adjacent Segment Foraminal Stenosis After Lumbar Fusion: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression: Defining Its Scope and Limitations.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Mature, Durable, and Established-Not Investigational.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique for adjacent segment pathology following lumbar fusion.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Endoscopic spinal surgery in adjacent segment disease-a viable alternative to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Percutaneous Spinal Endoscopic YESS Technique in Adjacent Segmental Disease Without Severe Instability After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Case Series.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Interlaminar Endoscopic Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Instrumented Lumbar Fusion.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy for Adjacent Segment Disease versus Lumbar Disc Herniation in Elderly Patients.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in the treatment of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common complication after lumbar fusion and is still traditionally treated by open surgery. In recent years, with the development of minimally invasive techniques, percutaneous endoscopic surgery(PES) has been used for the treatment of ASD after lumbar fusion due to its unique benefits. Nevertheless, it remains unclear about its significant clinical efficacy and advantages over conventional open surgery.
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of PES in the treatment of ASD after lumbar fusion. STUDY
designA systematic review and meta-analysis studies about the role of PES in managing ASD after lumbar fusion.
methodsA systematic search review was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed databases from the start of their construction to 15 November 2021. Eligible studies included references to clinical trials of PES for ASD after open lumbar fusion. Observations included pain relief, recovery of postoperative function, overall excellent rates, and indicators of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional surgery. Postoperative complications and recurrence rates were also recorded.
resultsA total of 24 studies, including 20 single-arm studies and 4 clinical control studies, all involving 928 patients were included. A total of 694 patients were included in the single-arm analysis. The results of the single-arm meta-analysis showed that PES could significantly reduce low back and leg pain and improve the functional status of the lumbar spine in patients with ASD after open lumbar fusion compared to preoperatively, and had good clinical efficacy after surgery. A total of 234 patients were included in the four clinically controlled studies, and the results of the meta-analysis showed that PES could clearly reduce pain and improve lumbar function, with no significant difference in efficacy between PES and open surgery. However, PES has a lower surgical incision, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter operative time and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. Moreover, it has a lower rate of postoperative recurrence as well as complications and a longer duration of efficacy.
conclusionsOn the basis of the available clinical literature and the results of this study, PES could achieve satisfactory clinical effects in ASD treatment after lumbar fusion. Compared with conventional open surgery, PES can not only obtain similar clinical results, but also had the advantages of less trauma and faster recovery. Nevertheless, a randomized controlled study is still needed to validate the findings of this study.
trial registrationSystematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022298387.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.