SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Efficacy of repeat discectomy alone versus with spinal fusion in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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.
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
Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is a common and debilitating condition. Surgical options include repeat Discectomy alone or with spinal Fusion, but the optimal approach remains debated. This meta-analysis evaluates their comparative efficacy. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing these procedures. Searches in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases yielded four RCTs with 596 patients. Primary outcomes included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale, and re-recurrence rates. A random-effects model assessed pooled effects, and heterogeneity was measured with I² statistics. Fusion significantly reduced VAS scores for low back pain compared to Discectomy alone (SMD - 1.91; 95% CI [-3.69, -0.13]; p = 0.04; I²=98%). However, VAS scores for lower limb pain (MD -0.33; 95% CI [-0.70, 0.03]; p = 0.07; I²=95%) and JOA scores (MD 0.41; 95% CI [-0.38, 1.20]; p = 0.31; I²=0%) showed no significant differences between groups. The Fusion group had a lower re-recurrence rate (RR 0.10; 95% CI [0.02, 0.54]; p = 0.008; I²=0%) and reduced postoperative instability (RR 0.11; 95% CI [0.02, 0.63]; p = 0.01; I²=0%). Findings suggest that spinal Fusion enhances stability and reduces re-recurrence but does not significantly improve functional recovery or all pain aspects. Treatment choice should consider clinical factors, patient preferences, and surgeon expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40342029What 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.