Comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
机构:[a]Guangdong Chaozhou Health Vocational College, The Second Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong, China,广东省中医院[b]Department of Graduate School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,[c]Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,广东省中医院[d]The Master Degree Application of Equivalent Educational Level of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,[e]The Fourth Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, China,深圳市中医院深圳医学信息中心[f]Department of Orthopedics, Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang, China,[g]The Third Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Background: Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED), as two alternative surgical techniques in minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS), are widely conducted in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH). This study will systematically assess and compare the clinical outcomes of MED and PTED in treating ULDH combining with the meta-analysis. Methods: All the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be searched at the databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and WANFANG Database from inception to December 2025. The primary outcome will involve Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. The secondary outcomes will be the short-form 36-item (SF-36) health survey questionnaire and the modified MacNab criterion. We will perform data synthesis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression analysis, and the assessment of reporting bias using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: This systematic review will comprehensively evaluate the clinical outcomes of comparison of MED and PTED in the treatment of ULDH and provide a reliable and high-quality evidence. Conclusion: The conclusion of this study will elucidate the clinical outcomes of MED compared with PTED and clarify whether PTED generates better clinical effects than MED in treating ULDH. PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42021244204
基金:
This research is supported by the scientific research project of Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Fund (2017B020247008).
第一作者机构:[a]Guangdong Chaozhou Health Vocational College, The Second Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong, China,[b]Department of Graduate School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,[c]Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,
共同第一作者:
通讯作者:
通讯机构:[a]Guangdong Chaozhou Health Vocational College, The Second Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong, China,[c]Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China,[*1]Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
WeiJun Xu,Bingxuan Yang,Xidan Lai,et al.Comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].MEDICINE.2021,100(46):doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000027914.
APA:
WeiJun Xu,Bingxuan Yang,Xidan Lai,Xinxin Hong,Zihao Chen&Dongqing Yu.(2021).Comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.MEDICINE,100,(46)
MLA:
WeiJun Xu,et al."Comparison of microendoscopic discectomy and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis".MEDICINE 100..46(2021)