Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22404142›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurosurgery. Spine2012

The efficacy of minimally invasive discectomy compared with open discectomy: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock, Stephen P Juraschek, Lonni R Schultz, Timothy F Witham, Daniel M Sciubba, Jean-Paul Wolinsky, Ziya L Gokaslan, Ali Bydon

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Fully endoscopic lumbar spinal surgery: Is it time to change?Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Unilateral discectomy: outcomes, postoperative pain, complications.European journal of translational myology · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Surgical tricks for open lumbar discectomy.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparison of osteoconductive and osteoinductive bone graft substitutes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hormuzdiyar H DasenbrockDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Children's Hospital of Boston/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Stephen P Juraschek
Lonni R Schultz
Timothy F Witham
Daniel M Sciubba
Jean-Paul Wolinsky
Ziya L Gokaslan
Ali Bydon
Johns Hopkins University · USHarvard University · USHenry Ford Hospital · US

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY INSTITUTIONAL TRAININGT32HL007024 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Elizabeth Selvin · 1985 to 2026
$17.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007024NHLBI NIH HHS T32HL007024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectAdvocates of minimally invasive discectomy (MID) have promoted this operation as an alternative to open discectomy (OD), arguing that there may be less injury to the paraspinal muscles, decreased postoperative pain, and a faster recovery time. However, a recently published large randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing these approaches reported inferior relief of leg pain in patients undergoing MID. The authors conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate complications and improvement in leg pain in patients with radiculopathy enrolled in RCTs comparing OD to MID.

methodsThe authors performed a literature search using Medline and EMBASE of studies indexed between January 1990 and January 2011. Predetermined RCT eligibility included the usage of tubular retractors during MID, a minimum follow-up duration of 1 year, and quantification of pain with the visual analog scale (VAS). Trials that only evaluated patients with recurrent disc herniation were excluded. Data on operative parameters, complications, and VAS scores of leg pain were extracted by 2 investigators. A meta-analysis was performed assuming random effects to determine the difference in mean change for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for binary outcomes.

resultsSix trials comprising 837 patients (of whom 388 were randomized to MID and 449 were randomized to OD) were included. The mean operative time was 49 minutes during MID and 44 minutes during OD; this difference was not statistically significant. Incidental durotomies occurred significantly more frequently during MID (5.67% compared with 2.90% for OD; RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.05-3.98). Intraoperative complications (incidental durotomies and nerve root injuries) were also significantly more common in patients undergoing MID (RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.07-3.77). The mean preoperative VAS score for leg pain was 6.9 in patients randomized to MID and 7.2 in those randomized to OD. With long-term follow-up (1-2 years postoperatively), the mean VAS score improved to 1.6 in both the MID and OD cohorts. There was no significant difference in relief of leg pain between the 2 approaches with either short-term follow-up (2-3 months postoperatively, 0.81 points on the VAS, 95% CI -4.71 to 6.32) or long-term follow-up (2.64 on the VAS, 95% CI -2.15 to 7.43). Reoperation for recurrent herniation was more common in patients randomized to the MID group (8.50% compared with 5.35% in patients randomized to the OD group), but this difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.92-2.66). Total complications did not differ significantly between the operations (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.33).

conclusionsThe current evidence suggests that both OD and MID lead to a substantial and equivalent long-term improvement in leg pain. Adequate decompression, regardless of the operative approach used, may be the primary determinant of pain relief-the major complaint of many patients with radiculopathy. Incidental durotomies occurred significantly more frequently during MID, but total complications did not differ between the techniques.

Indexed as

DiskectomyHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresProspective StudiesRadiculopathyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSciaticaTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22404142
PMCPMC3618291
OpenAlexW1776612149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.