ArticleSpine surgery and related research2025
Age-specific Comparative Clinical Outcomes of Chemonucleolysis with Condoliase versus Microendoscopic Discectomy in Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy of Chemonucleolysis with Condoliase for Lumbar Disc Herniation in Elderly Patients Over 70 Years of Age.Spine surgery and related research · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Condoliase-based chemonucleolysis and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) are considered to be minimally invasive treatments for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of both treatments, specifically focusing on whether the outcomes vary by age group. Methods: Patients with LDH who received intradiscal condoliase injections (condoliase group) or underwent MED (MED group) with 1-year follow-up were enrolled in this study. A numerical rating scale (NRS) was developed for leg and back pains. Using magnetic resonance imaging, changes in disc height and degeneration were evaluated. The data were assessed at baseline and at 3-month and 1-year follow-ups. The therapy was considered effective in patients whose NRS for leg pain improved by ≥50% at 1 year from baseline and for whom surgery was not required. Comparative analyses were conducted between the condoliase and MED groups and among the <20, 20-39, 40-59, and ≥60 year age groups. Results: In this study, a total of 345 patients (condoliase group, n=233; MED group, n=112) were enrolled. Subsequent surgery was required in 23 patients (9.9%) in the condoliase group because of the ineffectiveness of the condoliase therapy. Because of herniation recurrence, reoperation was required in five patients (4.5%) in the MED group. The efficacy rates were respectively 74.4% and 74.6% in the condoliase and MED groups, and no intergroup or age-group differences were found. The condoliase group had a significantly higher decrease in disc height when compared with the MED group (9.0% vs. 4.4%, p<0.05). Compared with the older age group, the younger age group had a greater decrease in disc height and disc degeneration; however, their recovery was better than that of the older age group. Among the age groups, the herniation reduction rate did not significantly vary. Conclusions: Condoliase and MED had equivalent 1-year outcomes, with no differences observed in efficacy across age groups. For informed decision-making, the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment must be understood.
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.