ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
The long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy for recurrent sciatica.
Article 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practice preference of revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: an international survey of AO spine members.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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the long-term outcome of revision microdiscectomy after classic microdiscectomy for lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LSRS).
methodsEighty-eight of 216 patients (41%) who underwent a revision microdiscectomy between 2007 and 2010 for MRI disc-related LSRS participated in this study. Questionnaires included visual analogue scores (VAS) for leg pain, RDQ, OLBD, RAND-36, and seven-point Likert scores for recovery, leg pain, and back pain. Any further lumbar re-revision operation(s) were recorded.
resultsMean (SD) age was 59.8 (12.8), and median [IQR] time of follow-up was 10.0 years [9.0-11.0]. A favourable general perceived recovery was reported by 35 patients (40%). A favourable outcome with respect to perceived leg pain was present in 39 patients (45%), and 35 patients (41%) reported a favourable outcome concerning back pain. The median VAS for leg and back pain was worse in the unfavourable group (48.0/100 mm (IQR 16.0-71.0) vs. 3.0/100 mm (IQR 2.0-5.0) and 56.0/100 mm (IQR 27.0-74.0) vs. 4.0/100 mm (IQR 2.0-17.0), respectively; both p < 0.001). Re-revision operation occurred in 31 (35%) patients (24% same level same side); there was no significant difference in the rate of favourable outcome between patients with or without a re-revision operation.
conclusionThe long-term results after revision microdiscectomy for LSRS show an unfavourable outcome in the majority of patients and a high risk of re-revision microdiscectomy, with similar results. Based on also the disappointing results of alternative treatments, revision microdiscectomy for recurrent LSRS seems to still be a valid treatment. The results of our study may be useful to counsel patients in making appropriate treatment choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38512504What 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.