ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Full-Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation: Comparative Outcomes and Risk Factors Between Lumbar Levels-The EndoLEVEL Study.
Article in International journal of spine 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH) represents a rare but distinct subset of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), often presenting with atypical symptoms, older patient age, and greater surgical complexity due to the narrower spinal canal. While full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is increasingly used for LDH, robust data on its outcomes in ULDH remain limited.
objectiveThis study aimed primarily to compare clinical outcomes of FELD between ULDH and lower lumbar disc herniation (LLDH). Secondary objectives included identifying risk factors associated with ULDH and describing perioperative differences between groups.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a single-center cohort of 806 patients undergoing FELD (TESSYS or iLESSYS) for LDH. Patients were stratified by level: ULDH (L1-L2, L2-L3, and L3-L4) vs LLDH (L4-L5 and L5-S1). Demographic, operative, and clinical data were compared, including visual analog scale pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, Short Form-12, complications, and reoperation rates. Statistical analysis used
resultsULDH patients comprised 13% of the cohort and were significantly older than LLDH patients (57.3 ± 12.0 vs 46.0 ± 13.5 years). Patients in the ULDH group showed shorter symptom duration, longer operative times, and higher rates of postoperative persistent neurological deficits compared with those in the LLDH group (36.0% vs 25.6%,
conclusionFELD offers effective, well-tolerated treatment for ULDH, achieving comparable clinical outcomes to LLDH despite anatomical complexity. These findings support the broader use of endoscopic techniques for all lumbar levels while underscoring the need for cautious surgical planning and further prospective studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FELD provides effective pain relief and functional improvement for patients with ULDH, with outcomes comparable to those with LLDH. Despite anatomical challenges and a higher risk of persistent neurological deficits, FELD is a safe, minimally invasive option, supporting its broader use across all lumbar levels with careful surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.