SynthesisPloS one2025
Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Radiological characteristics in coronal and sagittal planes and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients with lumbar disc herniation accompanied by sciatic scoliosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: ipsilateral direct with contralateral indirect decompression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Advancing lumbar disc herniation treatment: a prospective study on the efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy under local anesthesia, across symptom severity.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designNetwork meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons of recurrence lumbar disc herniation.
objectiveThe purpose of comparing the differences between different surgical approaches for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles published before April 10th, 2024. The Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to perform a hierarchical Bayesian NMA in R version 4.3.3 using a random effects consistency model. The assessing outcomes were pain intensity, disability, complications and recurrence.
results20 studies including 1556 patients and 7 different approaches (PELD, MED, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Unilat -TLIF, PLIF and OD) were retrospectively retrieved. the efficacy of each approach was the same in relieving pain, OD was significantly better than PELD and MIS-TLIF in relieving dysfunction (SMD: 1.9[0.21,3.4] and 2.0[0.084,3.8], respectively), In addition, MIS-TLIF was significantly lower than PELD and MED in the complication rate (SMD: 0.37[0.14,0.84] and 0.15[0.034,0.68], respectively), TLIF was significantly Lower than MED in the complication rate (SMD:0.14 [0.027,0.70]), PELD was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF, TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD: 1.3e-17 [2.4e-44,0.00016],1.2e-12[2.1e-36,0.34] and 1.4e-12[6.2e-35,0.013], respectively), MED was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD: 2.6e-17[5.6e-44,0.0037] and 3.1e-12[1.6e-34,0.022], respectively), OD was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF, TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD:4.6e+16[2.3e+02,3.0e+43], 4.3e+11[2.4,2.5e+35] and 4.1e+11[35,8.7e+33], respectively).
conclusionsIn the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, vertebral fusion surgery is superior to repeat discectomy. At the same time, MIS-TLIF may be a preferable surgical procedure in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
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.