ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Three Evaluation Methods for the Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Vacuum Phenomenon in Predicting Postoperative Residual Lower Back Pain.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe lumbar intervertebral disc vacuum phenomenon (VP) is an important imaging finding commonly seen in patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). It is closely associated with low back pain (LBP) and surgical outcomes after spine surgery. This study aims to compare different evaluation methods of VP to determine which method best predicts postoperative residual LBP after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for LDD.
methodsOverall, 66 patients (67.8 ± 10.2 years; 36 male/30 female) with LDD treated by single-level TLIF, who showed preoperative LBP, were enrolled in this study. The severity of VP (SVP) score was evaluated by three methods: SVP1 score, Willhuber's classification; SVP2 score, a modified classification excluding subchondral sclerosis; and SVP3 score, presence/absence of VP. Clinical outcomes were assessed. Patients were divided into the residual LBP group (R group) and the control group (C group) by postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) for LBP. Logistic regression analyses (both univariate and multivariable adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis) were performed with the presence of residual LBP as the dependent variable and each SVP score as an independent variable. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate predictive ability, and DeLong's test was used to compare AUCs.
resultsEach SVP score was significantly greater in the R group than in the C group. There were no significant differences in preoperative clinical outcomes. The AUCs of SVP1, SVP2, and SVP3 were 0.789, 0.802, and 0.788, respectively. Although SVP2 had the largest AUC, DeLong's test showed no statistically significant differences among the three methods. In multivariable analyses, all SVP scores remained significant predictors of residual LBP.
conclusionEvaluation of VP severity based on VP size (modified Willhuber's classification, SVP2) demonstrated the highest numerical predictive accuracy for postoperative residual LBP, but differences compared with other methods were not statistically significant. SVP scoring may serve as a useful preoperative tool.
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.