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