Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis

Table 1

The basic characteristics of the included literature.

Author, year	Design	Operation type		Sample size (male/female)		Mean age (years)		Follow-up (months)
		Observe group	Control group	Observe group	Control group	Observe group	Control group	Observe group	Control group
Chen (2015)[1]	RCS	PELD	NPLW	18 (12/6)	25 (14/11)			NR	NR
Lee (2009)[6]	RCS	PELD	NPLW	25 (16/9)	29 (22/7)
Lee (2018)[12]	RCS	PELD	NPLW	35 (25/10)	48 (30/18)
Liu (2017)[13]	RCS	PELD	MIS-TLIF	209 (110/99)	192 (92/100)	57.2	55.9	43.7	45.3
Ruetten (2009)[9]	RCT	PELD	MED	50	50	39	39	24	24
Wang (2020)[16]	RCS	PELD	MIS-TLIF	24 (14/10)	22 (14/8)			12	12
Yao (2017)[14]	RCS	PELD	MED/MIS-TLIF	28 (18/10)	20 (11/9)/26 (13/13)		/	12	12
Yao (2017)[14]	RCS	PELD	MIS-TLIF	47 (72.34%)	58 (72.41%)			12	12

Note: RCT: randomized controlled trial; PCS: prospective cohort study; RCS: retrospective cohort study; PELD: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy; NPLW: nucleus pulpotomy by lamina window; MED: microendoscopic discectomy; MIS-TLIF: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; NR: not reported.