ArticleAsian spine journal2018
Analysis of Revision Surgery of Microsurgical Lumbar Discectomy.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Three-Step Approach for Lumbar Disk Herniation with Anatomical Insights Tailored for the Next Generation of Young Spine Surgeons.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative study on the technique and efficacy of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF in lumbar revision surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Moderate to Severe Multifidus Fatty Atrophy is the Risk Factor for Recurrence After Microdiscectomy of Lumbar Disc Herniation.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Repeat Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Reoperation of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Risk Factors and Surgical Treatment for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Prolapse: A Review of the Literature.Asian spine journal · 2020Article
- The evidence-based approach for surgical complications in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective study. PURPOSE: Our objectives were to determine the association between the pathological changes of disc herniation and the interval between primary and revision surgeries and to investigate the frequency and site of the dural laceration in the primary and revision surgeries. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Among 382 patients who underwent microsurgical lumbar discectomy, we investigated 29 who underwent revision surgery to analyze recurrent herniation pathologies and complications to determine the manner in which lumbar disc herniation can be more efficiently managed.
methodsOf 29 patients, 22 had recurrent disc herniation at the same level and site. The pathological changes associated with compression factors were classified into the following two types depending on intraoperative findings: (1) true recurrence and (2) minor recurrence with peridural fibrosis (>4 mm thickness). The sites of dural laceration were examined using video footage and operative records.
resultsThe pathological findings and days between the primary and revision surgeries showed no statistical difference (
conclusionsWe recommend that meticulous epidural dissection around the scar formation must be performed during revision surgery to avoid complications.
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.