SynthesisPloS one2015
Comparison of discectomy versus sequestrectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequesterectomy versus standard micro‑/open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of treatments for lumbar disc herniation: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Three-year results from a randomized trial of lumbar discectomy with annulus fibrosus occlusion in patients at high risk for reherniation.Acta neurochirurgica · 2019Trial
- Comparison of recurrence and postoperative outcomes after endoscopic versus microsurgical sequestrectomy for lumbar disc herniation: 5-year experience.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Lumbar disc herniation: Prevention and treatment of recurrence: WFNS spine committee recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Review
- Role of surgery in primary lumbar disk herniation: WFNS spine committee recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Review
- Bone resorption around the annular closure device during a postoperative follow-up of 8 years.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: an efficacy analysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- The Effect of Two Different Dexmedetomidine Doses on the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Discectomy Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Biomaterials delivery strategies to repair degenerated intervertebral discs by regulating the inflammatory microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Application of mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes from different sources in intervertebral disc degeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Disc Herniation, 2021: 5. Prognosis.Spine surgery and related research · 2022Article
- The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Disc Herniation, 2021: 4. Treatment.Spine surgery and related research · 2022Article
- Article
- Efficacy of Single Level Versus Double Levels Surgery of Percutaneous Disc Nucleoplasty (PDN) Approach in Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Two-year real-world results of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure in patients at high risk of reherniation.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 · 2019Article
- Article
- The Disability Cascade: A Preventable Consequence of the Loss of Disc Height following Lumbar Microdiscectomy.Cureus · 2019Review
- Surgical Experience and Complications in 50 Patients Treated with an Anular Closure Device Following Lumbar Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar disc removal is currently the standard treatment for lumbar disc herniation. No consensus has been achieved whether aggressive disc resection with curettage (discectomy) versus conservative removal of the offending disc fragment alone (sequestrectomy) provides better outcomes. This study aims to compare the reherniation rate and clinical outcomes between discectomy and sequestrectomy by literature review and a meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed up to June 1, 2014. Outcomes of interest assessing the two techniques included demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative variables, complications, recurrent herniation rate and post-operative functional outcomes.
resultsTwelve eligible trials evaluating discectomy vs sequestrectomy were identified including one randomized controlled study, five prospective and six retrospective comparative studies. By contrast to discectomy, sequestrectomy was associated with significantly less operative time (p<0.001), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) for low back pain (p<0.05), less post-operative analgesic usage (p<0.05) and better patients' satisfaction (p<0.05). Recurrent herniation rate, reoperation rate, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration and VAS for sciatica were without significant difference.
conclusionsAccording to our pooled data, sequestrectomy entails equivalent reherniation rate and complications compared with discectomy but maintains a lower incidence of recurrent low back pain and higher satisfactory rate. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to firmly assess these two procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.