ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Comparison of postoperative complications and outcomes following primary versus revision discectomy: A national database analysis.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of catheter-based extradural collagenase chemonucleolysis on pain scores and lumbar function in patients with lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 'Rebound Phenomenon' - a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Do revision lumbar spine procedures lead to worse postoperative outcomes? A systematic review with a meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar microdiscectomy is a surgical procedure that is frequently used in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar herniation. Differences in outcomes following primary and revision lumbar microdiscectomy have been previously studied, with reports of comparably satisfactory results from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. In this study, we further investigate these outcomes, including length of stay, bleeding events, and durotomy. We hypothesized that length of stay, incidence of bleeding events, and dural tear would be greater in the revision cohort. Methods: The ACS-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing single-level primary and revision lumbar microdiscectomy between 2019 and 2022. Eligibility for inclusion was determined by age >18 years and current procedural terminology codes 63030 and 63042. Patients with preoperative sepsis or cancer were excluded. Length of stay, wound infection, bleeding events requiring transfusion, cerebrospinal fluid leak, dural tear, and neurological injury were compared between the cohorts. Multivariable Poisson regression adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, including age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes, smoking, and hypertension, was used to determine if revision was predictive of complications. Results: A total of 37,669 patients were included, of whom 3,635 (9.6%) required revision surgery. Patients in the revision cohort were older (54.25 ± 15.7 vs. 50.85 ± 16.0 years, Conclusion: Revision surgery was a significant predictor of increased length of stay, wound infection, and bleeding events requiring transfusion. Surgeons and patients alike should be aware of increased risk for complications following revision lumbar microdiscectomy compared to primary discectomy.
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.