ArticleGlobal spine journal2021
Comparison of Functional Outcomes Between Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Discectomy in Massive Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Global spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The anti-oxidation related bioactive materials for intervertebral disc degeneration regeneration and repair.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Initial experience of 3-dimensional exoscope in decompression of massive lumbar disc herniation.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Assessment of early functional outcome of lumbar discectomy in Soba and Future hospitals, Khartoum, Sudan 2021.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective analysis.
objectiveLumbar disc herniation is one the most common condition responsible for low back and radicular pain. Although the symptoms are not proportional to the size of disc prolapse but massive disc herniation frequently needs surgical management. According to literature, the incidence of low back pain, recurrent disc herniation and segmental instability are more in discectomy whereas incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is more after fusion surgery. There are very few studies that directly compare long-term functional outcome of both these procedures. We compared the functional outcome of both the procedures in this study.
methodsAll patients of massive disc prolapse, operated at our center between 2011 to 2017, were contacted. All the patients underwent either discectomy or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Functional outcomes of all the patients were collected using visual analogue scale (VAS) (back), VAS (leg), modified Oswestry Disability Index (mODI), Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI), and McNab's criterion. Various complications were also analyzed.
resultsThere were 144 patients in the discectomy group and 123 patients in the TLIF group. Mean duration of follow-up was 55.07 months and 51.86 months, respectively. Both the groups show no significant difference in VAS. Significant difference was seen in mODI and SBI favoring discectomy. McNab's criterion showed excellent result in 80% of patients of discectomy compared with 68% patients of TLIF. Overall complication rate in discectomy group was 11% whereas 13% in TLIF group.
conclusionBoth show good functional outcome but better in discectomy. Recurrent herniation and instability were noticed more with discectomy and ASD was more common after fusion surgeries. The choice of procedure should be individualized, and it also depends on surgical expertise, but in developing countries where resources are constrained, discectomy should be preferred.
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.