ReviewSpine surgery and related research2026
Outcomes of Percutaneous Laser Disc Decompression for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Spine surgery and related research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous laser disc decompression (PLDD) is a minimally invasive treatment option for carefully selected patients with lumbar disc herniations (LDH) whose condition does not respond to conservative therapy but who may not require surgical decompression. Although PLDD has been increasingly adopted, reported outcomes vary widely across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PLDD in adults with LDH. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through November 2025. Adult PLDD studies reporting clinical outcomes were included. Random-effects models pooled continuous and binary outcomes. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) improvement and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change, reoperation rates, and complications. Heterogeneity was assessed with I Results: Fifteen publications reporting 14 unique PLDD cohorts were included. Eight studies (n=506) reported VAS outcomes, showing a pooled pain reduction of 4.33 points on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.03-5.64; I Conclusions: PLDD is associated with meaningful pain reduction and moderate clinical success with a very low complication rate in selected patients with LDH. Functional outcomes and reoperation rates varied across studies. Further high-quality comparative research is needed to better define long-term results and optimal patient selection.
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.