Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of study criteria—prospective studies and retrospective studies

From: Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar discherniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Study type

Sample size

Av. age

Mean duration of follow-up (months)

Gender (M/F)

Level

Hermantin et al. [20]

RCT

60

39 vs. 40

31(19–42) vs. 32(21–42)

22:8/17:13

L2-L3L3-L4L4-L5L5-S1

Mayer and Brock [21]

RCT

40

39.8 ± 10.4 vs. 42.7 ± 10

6.9

12:8/14:6

L2-L3L3-L4L4-L5

Ruetten et al. [10]

RCT

129

43

24

–

L1-L2L2-L3L3-L4L4-L5L5-S1

Gibson et al. [22]

RCT

140

42.0 ± 9 vs. 39 ± 9

24

30:40/40:30

L3-L4L4-L5L5-S1

Akçakaya et al. [27]

RCT

30

44.1

–

–

–

Kim et al. [23]

Retro

902

34.9 vs. 44.4

23.6

188:107/392:215

L1-L2L2-L3L3-L4L4-L5L5-S1

Lee et al. [24]

Retro

60

39.3 vs. 39.6

38.2(32–45) vs. 36.8(35–42)

22: 8/22: 8

L4-L5L5-S1

Ahn et al. [25]

Retro

66

22.41 ± 1.68 vs. 22.18 ± 1.51

13.69 + 1.26 vs. 13.41 + 1.02

32:0/34:0

L4-L5

Hsu et al. [26]

Retro

100

–

20.4

–

L1-L2L2-L3L3-L4L4-L5