ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Lumbar total disk replacement versus microsurgical lumbar discectomy in treatment of radicular and back pain in railway workers: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
- A 7-year minimum follow-up of the M6-L total disk replacement for low back pain with radiculopathy in young railway employees: a retrospective single-center study.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, there remains a high percentage of complications after lumbar discectomy, while there is no uniform tactic to prevent their development. Purpose of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and return to work rate (RWR) after total disk replacement (TDR) and microsurgical lumbar discectomy (MLD) in railway workers with lumbar disk herniation (LDH). Methods: We randomly assigned 75 patients out of a total of 81 patients, between 25 and 35 years of age who had one level LDH to undergo single-level TDR surgery (group I, n=37) or MLD surgery (group II, n=38) in the L4-L5 or L5-S1 segments. The functional state was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain severity was analyzed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, quality of life was assessed according to SF-36 preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The X-ray assessment was used to assess the efficacy of the respective surgical methods pre-operatively and last follow-up of 1-year. Workload intensity criterions were used to analyze return to work 1 year after surgery. Clinical and radiographic observers were blinded for the assigned treatment during the 12-month follow-up. Results: As expected, the MLD group had statistically significantly lower duration of surgery and less bleeding than TDR group. At a 1-year follow-up period, the TDR group had significantly better ODI, VAS and SF-36 than the MLD group. The postoperative X-ray revealed a statistically significant difference of the range of motion (ROM) and global lumbar lordosis in TDR group compared to the MLD group. After TDR procedure in light-moderate and heavy-very heavy workload patients groups had a statistically significantly higher RWR compared with MLD. The analysis revealed a comparable number of symptomatic complications in both groups (P=0.47), with a greater frequency of reoperations in the follow-up period in MLD group in comparison TDR group (P=0.04). Conclusions: The use of single-level TDR in railway workers has made it possible to significantly improve long-term clinical results, reduce the risk of reoperations, restore of segmental mobility at operation level, preserve of global lumbar lordosis and RWR compared to MLD. Trial Registration: Russian Clinical Trial Registry 622011400059-4.
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.