Tubular discectomy resulted in greater leg and back pain and a lower rate of recovery than conventional microdiscectomy for sciatica.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Comparison of outcomes between tubular microdiscectomy and conventional microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023
   Pooled it
2. The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2012
   Pooled it
3. Microdiscectomy or tubular discectomy: Is any of them a better option for management of lumbar disc prolapse.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.2009

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.