ArticleCureus2025
Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumber Spine Disease: A Comparative Study of Microdisectomy Versus Open Disectomy.
Article in Cureus, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is a prevalent condition that significantly impacts quality of life. Surgical interventions, including microdiscectomy and open discectomy, are commonly used to treat symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. However, the comparative effectiveness of these procedures remains a subject of ongoing research. Objective This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of microdiscectomy and open discectomy in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease, focusing on pain relief, functional recovery, complications, and patient satisfaction. Methods A total of 600 patients (309 microdiscectomy, 291 open discectomy) were included in this prospective cohort study. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, functional recovery (measured by Oswestry Disability Index), and complications. Logistic regression and multiple linear regression models were employed to predict outcomes, and random forest analysis was used to identify key predictors of complications. Results Microdiscectomy was associated with significantly better postoperative outcomes, including reduced pain (213/309 (69%) vs. 146/291 (50%)), faster recovery (mean recovery time 5.2 weeks vs. 7.6 weeks), fewer complications (46/309 (14.9%) vs. 67/291 (23%)), and higher patient satisfaction (101/309 (32.8%) vs. 73/291 (25%)). Additionally, microdiscectomy also resulted in larger overall improvements in functional recovery and mobility scores compared to open discectomy. Conclusion Microdiscectomy provides superior results in pain relief, recovery time, and complication rates compared to open discectomy. This supports recommending microdiscectomy (with proper patient selection) for most patients with 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.