ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparison of discectomy with and without fusion in the surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRecurrent intervertebral disc herniation is one of the most common problems encountered in spine surgery. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of revision microdiscectomy and fusion surgeries in patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
methods276 patients who underwent surgery with same surgeon for recurrent lumbar disc herniation between January 2012 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 (revision microdiscectomy, n = 129), Group 2 (discectomy with posterolateral fusion, n = 123), and Group 3 (discectomy with posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion, n = 24). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using pre- and postoperative VAS and JOA scores.
resultsPostoperative radicular and lumbar VAS scores were significantly higher in Group 1 compared with Groups 2 and 3. The recovery rates were highest in Group 3 (77%) and Group 2 (75.5%), while Group 1 showed a lower recovery rate (71.8%). Postoperative JOA scores improved significantly in all groups, with Group 3 showing the greatest improvement in total JOA scores and SLR test results. DISCUSSION: Fusion procedures were associated with better pain control and functional improvement but higher risks of complications, including screw malposition and cage displacement. Both revision microdiscectomy and fusion surgeries are effective for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Revision microdiscectomy is effective in young patients with limited back pain but carries risks of recurrence and instability. Fusion surgeries provide superior pain relief and functional outcomes but carry higher risks of complications and longer recovery times.
conclusionBoth revision microdiscectomy and discectomy with fusion appear to be effective surgical options for the management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation. The selection of the surgical technique should be guided by patient-specific factors such as age and the predominance of low back versus radicular pain.
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.