ArticleCureus2016
Treatment of Recurrent Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review.
Article in Cureus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of machine learning in predicting recurrence risk of lumbar disc herniation after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- The Functional Role of Interface Tissue Engineering in Annulus Fibrosus Repair: Bridging Mechanisms of Hydrogel Integration with Regenerative Outcomes.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of biomechanical studies of disc repair devices based on a systematic review.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2020Pooled it
- Annular closure device for disc herniation: meta-analysis of clinical outcome and complications.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2018Pooled it
- Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for lumbar-disc herniation based on machine learning and fusion of clinical text data and radiomic features.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 · 2026Article
- Comparison of Acupuncture and Lumbar Traction for Lumbar Disc Herniation and Subsequent Risk of Lumbar Fusion or Discectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Is Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy the Best Option for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Effect of Patient's Characteristics and Surgical Technique on the Patient Outcomes and Satisfaction After Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy-A Long-Term Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy for recurrent sciatica.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 · 2024Article
- Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lead to Better Clinical and Radiological Outcomes than Redo-Discectomy?Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Remodeling Pattern of Spinal Canal after Full Endoscopic Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: One Year Repetitive MRI and Clinical Follow-Up Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Herniation: Annular Closure Devices and Key Design Requirements.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Is surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation worthwhile or futile? A single center observational study with patient reported outcomes.Brain & spine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Two Methods (Inside-Out/Outside-In) Inferior Articular Process Resection for Uniportal Full Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Decompression Alone Versus and Decompression and Fusion for First Episode Recurrent Disc Herniation.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Analysis of Subdural Injection During Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injection in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Bilateral thoracic disc herniation with abdominal wall paresis: a case report.Acta neurochirurgica · 2020Article
- Article
- Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Pain Assessment after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intervertebral disc herniation is one of the most common causes of back and extremity pain. The most commonly used surgical treatment is lumbar discectomy. About 0.5-25% go on to develop recurrent disc herniation (rDH) after a successful first discectomy. Currently, there aren't any guidelines to assist surgeons in determining which approach is most appropriate to treat rDH. A recent survey showed significant heterogeneity among surgeons regarding treatment options for rDH. It remains unclear which methods lead to better outcomes, as there are no comparative studies with a sufficient level of evidence. In this study, we aimed to perform a systematic review to compare treatment options for rDH and determine if one intervention provides better outcomes than the other; more specifically, whether outcome differences exist between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. We applied the PICOS (participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design) format to develop this systematic review through PubMed. Twenty-seven papers from 1978-2014 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Nine papers reported outcomes after discectomy and seven of them showed good or excellent outcomes (70.60%-89%). Ten papers reported on minimally invasive discectomy. The percent change in visual analog scale (VAS) ranged from -50.77% to -86.57%, indicating an overall pain reduction. Four studies out of the ten reported good or excellent outcomes (81% to 90.2%). Three studies looked at posterolateral fusion. Three studies analyzed posterior lumbar interbody fusion. For one study, we found the VAS percentage change to be -46.02%. All reported good to excellent outcomes. Six studies evaluated the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. All reported improvement in pain. Four used VAS, and we found the percent change to be -54% to -86.5%. The other two used the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, and we found the percent change to be 68.3% to 93.3%. We did not find enough evidence to support any significant difference in outcomes between discectomy alone and discectomy with fusion. The limitation of our study includes the lack of standardized outcomes reporting in the literature. However, reviewing the selected articles shows that fusion may have a greater improvement in pain compared to reoperation without fusion. Nonetheless, our study shows that further and more in-depth investigation is needed on the of treatment of rDH.
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.