Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37010608›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

The effectiveness and safety of annulus closure device implantation in lumbar discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wei-Shang Li, Gao-Yu Li, Qi Yan, Wen-Ting Chen, Lin Cong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Lumbar Disc Herniation: What's New in Surgical Treatment.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wei-Shang Li *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No.155, Nanjing Bei Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Gao-Yu Li *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No.36, Sanhao Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Qi YanDepartments of Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7741, San Antonio, TX, 78229-3900, USA.
Wen-Ting ChenDisease Control and Prevention Center of China Railway Shenyang Bureau Group Corporation, No.4, Taiyuan Bei Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Lin CongDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No.155, Nanjing Bei Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China. chinaconglin@outlook.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9951-5239

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81871803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to systematically estimate the effectiveness and safety of annulus closure device (ACD) implantation in discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

methodsA systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trial (RCT) from inception until April 16, 2022. Trials which investigated comparisons between with and without ACD implantation in discectomy for LDH patients were identified.

resultsIn total, five RCTs involving 2380 patients with LDH underwent discectomy were included. The included patients were divided into ACD group and control group (CTL). Significant differences were found in the rate of re-herniation (ACD: 7.40%, CTL: 17.58%), reoperation (ACD: 5.39%, CTL: 13.58%) and serious adverse event (ACD: 10.79%, CTL: 17.14%) between ACD group and CTL group. No significant difference was found in VAS-BACK, VAS-LEG, ODI and SF-12 PCS between ACD and CTL. The surgical time of ACD was longer than CTL with statistical significance. In subgroup analyses based on discectomy type, significant differences were found in the rate of re-herniation (ACD: 10.73%, CTL: 21.27%), reoperation (ACD: 4.96%, CTL: 13.82%) and serious adverse event (ACD: 7.59%, CTL: 16.89%) between ACD and CTL in limited lumbar discectomy (LLD).

conclusionDiscectomy either with or without ACD implantation is considered to achieve similar clinical outcomes. Whereas, the ACD implantation in LLD is associated with lower re-herniation and reoperation rate but prolonged surgical time for LDH patients. Researches on cost-effectiveness and effect of ACD implantation in different discectomy are needed in the future.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementDiskectomyHumansLumbar VertebraeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationTreatment OutcomeAnnulus closure deviceDiscectomyLumbar disc herniationMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.