ReviewJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Do revision lumbar spine procedures lead to worse postoperative outcomes? A systematic review with a meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes.
Review in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Revision lumbar spine surgery is increasingly performed for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease, and pseudarthrosis, yet comparative outcomes with primary procedures remain incompletely characterized. This systematic review compared perioperative complications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and reoperation risk between primary and revision lumbar surgery. Materials and Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of PubMed was conducted through July 28, 2025. Studies published after 2000 comparing adult patients undergoing primary versus revision lumbar surgery were included. Data extraction and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were performed independently by reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for outcomes reported in at least three studies. Results: Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, including lumbar fusion ( Conclusions: Revision lumbar surgery is associated with greater perioperative risk and lower absolute functional outcomes than primary procedures, although most patients achieve meaningful postoperative improvement. Careful patient selection and preoperative expectation management remain essential. Level of Evidence: III.
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.