Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40546274›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2025

When can lumbar fusion be considered appropriate in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gianpaolo Jannelli, Francesco Polinelli, Antonella Giardina, Marco Cuzzolin, Francesco Calvanese, Ivan Cabrilo, Luca Paun, Enrico Tessitore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gianpaolo JannelliDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesco PolinelliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.
Antonella GiardinaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.
Marco CuzzolinOrthopaedic and Traumatology Unit, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Service of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
Francesco CalvaneseDepartment of Spine and Robotic Surgery, Humanitas San Pio X Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Ivan CabriloDepartment of Neurosurgery, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.
Luca PaunDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Enrico TessitoreDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is defined as the reappearance, following initial discectomy, of disc material and pain after a period of at least six symptom-free months. Redo surgery is usually considered following unsuccessful conservative management or in the presence of neurological deficits. Research question: Given the lack of consensus on the ideal surgical strategy for RLDH, we conducted this study to evaluate when lumbar fusion (LF) should be considered in the treatment of RLDH. Material and methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov focusing on the treatment of recurrent disc herniation using microdiscectomy alone or through fusion. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The weighted mean difference was calculated for both binary and continuous outcomes. Results: This resulted in a list of 900 references, from which 11 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for the study. There were four prospective studies and seven retrospective studies. A comparison of LF and redo discectomy (RD) revealed no significant differences in clinical outcome scores. LF resulted in significantly higher intraoperative blood loss, longer hospitalizations and longer surgeries. No further differences were identified. Discussion and conclusions: Both LF and RD represent safe and effective treatment options in first RLDH. The choice of surgical strategy should integrate the eventual co-existence of clinical and radiological features of segmental instability, as well subjective aspects, such as surgeons' training and patient preference.

Indexed as

Lumbar microdiscectomyLumbar osteoarthritisMinimally invasive surgeryRedo surgerySpinal arthrodesisSpondylodesis

Identifiers

PMID40546274
PMCPMC12182769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.