ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Fusion versus nonfusion treatment for recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors, surgical timing, and outcomes of revision discectomy versus fusion.Asian spine journal · 2026Review
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications in Different Fusion Surgical Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of discectomy with and without fusion in the surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- When can lumbar fusion be considered appropriate in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and repeat discectomy.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Recurrent or junctional lumbar foraminal herniated disc in patients operated with trans pars microscopic approach.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- Physical Functional Ability and Quantitative Assessment of the Multifidus Muscle of the Lumbar Spine in the Elderly.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical efficacy of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a single-center retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Factors affecting return to work following endoscopic lumbar foraminal stenosis surgery: A single-center series.Surgical neurology international · 2023Article
- The Potential Role of Dysregulated miRNAs in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis and 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Anatomical Variations of the Sciatic Nerve Exit from the Pelvis and Its Relationship with the Piriformis Muscle: A Cadaveric Study.Neurology international · 2022Article
- Patient-Specific Finite Element Modeling of the Whole Lumbar Spine Using Clinical Routine Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) Data-A Pilot Study.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- A Modified Approach for Minimally Invasive Tubular Microdiscectomy for Far Lateral Disc Herniations: Docking at the Caudal Level Transverse Process.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Posterior longitudinal ligament suturation after lumbar discectomy provides postoperative a large intradural area: First report.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Unprecedented journey to 650 transpedicular screws using freehand technique and intraoperative C-arm imaging with technical nuances.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy for pathologies of lumbar spine: A nationwide cross-sectional study from a lower-middle-income country.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- The post spinal surgery syndrome: A review.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
- Advancing insights into recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A comparative analysis of surgical approaches and a new classification.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is one of the major causes for failure of primary surgery. The optimal surgical treatment of RLDH remains controversial.
aimRetrospectively, we evaluate 135 patients and compare the clinical outcomes between fusion and nonfusion treatment of RLDH.
methodsRecords of 75 men and 35 women aged 28-60 years for conventional revision discectomy alone (nonfusion) and 15 men and 10 women aged 30-65 years for revision discectomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and transpedicular screw fixation (fusion) were reviewed. Demographics, surgical data, and complications were collected and pre- and postoperative assessment were done by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scale and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. The results after surgery were assessed according to the recovery rate as excellent, good, fair, and poor.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 28.8 and 24.6 months in Group A (nonfusion) and Group B (fusion group), respectively. The preoperative data between both the groups showed no statistically significant difference. The postoperative mean VAS and JAO scores, recovery rate, and satisfaction rate showed no statistically significant difference except postoperative low back pain and occasional radicular pain and neurological deficit in nonfusion group which was significantly higher than that of fusion group. In comparison to fusion group, nonfusion group required significantly less operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative hospital stay, no blood transfusion, and less total cost of the procedure. Satisfaction rate was 80% and 88% in nonfusion and fusion groups, respectively.
conclusionsBoth convention revision discectomy (nonfusion) and discectomy with instrumented fusion (TLIF) surgery are effective in patients with RLDH.
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.