ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Practice preference of revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: an international survey of AO spine members.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. 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.
- Letter to Editor: Practice preference of revision surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: an international survey of AO spine members.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore global practice patterns and surgeon preferences in the surgical management of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (rLDH), and to identify factors influencing the choice of technique.
methodsA survey was distributed to the AOSpine members globally to ascertain rLDH surgical management preferences. Preference of surgeons for management options such as sequestrectomy, partial discectomy (PD), radical discectomy (RD) and fusion was ascertained for early (< 3 months) and late (> 3 months) rLDH scenarios following initial recovery for 6 months.
results714 surgeons responded to the survey. In early rLDH, PD was predominantly preferred (48.0%, n = 343) followed by RD (18.3%, n = 131), fusion (17.9%, n = 128) and sequestrectomy (14.4%, n = 103). In late rLDH, 40.2%(n = 287) of the surgeons preferred interbody fusion followed by sequestrectomy (31.7%, n = 226) and RD (21.6%, n = 154). Surgeons predominantly preferred to utilize the same approach as that of index surgery. Fusion was considered when there was a concomitant or incipient degenerative disease. Fusion in the early rLDH is significantly influenced by region, training, and volume of cases handled by the surgeons.
conclusionPartial discectomy and interbody fusion are the predominant management of choice in both the early and late rLDH. The choice of fusion predominantly depends on the state of the index and adjacent segment, instability and degeneration respectively. Fusion in the early rLDH is significantly influenced by region, surgical training, and volume of cases handled by the surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41384960What 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.