IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0309343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A network meta-analysis and systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Hang Zhang
  • Junmao Gao
  • Qipeng Xie
  • Mingxin Zhang

Abstract

Study design: Network meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons of recurrence lumbar disc herniation. Objective: The purpose of comparing the differences between different surgical approaches for recurrent lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: The PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched for articles published before April 10th, 2024. The Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to perform a hierarchical Bayesian NMA in R version 4.3.3 using a random effects consistency model. The assessing outcomes were pain intensity, disability, complications and recurrence. Results: 20 studies including 1556 patients and 7 different approaches (PELD, MED, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Unilat -TLIF, PLIF and OD) were retrospectively retrieved. the efficacy of each approach was the same in relieving pain, OD was significantly better than PELD and MIS-TLIF in relieving dysfunction (SMD: 1.9[0.21,3.4] and 2.0[0.084,3.8], respectively), In addition, MIS-TLIF was significantly lower than PELD and MED in the complication rate (SMD: 0.37[0.14,0.84] and 0.15[0.034,0.68], respectively), TLIF was significantly Lower than MED in the complication rate (SMD:0.14 [0.027,0.70]), PELD was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF, TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD: 1.3e-17 [2.4e-44,0.00016],1.2e-12[2.1e-36,0.34] and 1.4e-12[6.2e-35,0.013], respectively), MED was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD: 2.6e-17[5.6e-44,0.0037] and 3.1e-12[1.6e-34,0.022], respectively), OD was significantly higher than MIS-TLIF, TLIF and PLIF in the recurrence rate (SMD:4.6e+16[2.3e+02,3.0e+43], 4.3e+11[2.4,2.5e+35] and 4.1e+11[35,8.7e+33], respectively). Conclusions: In the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, vertebral fusion surgery is superior to repeat discectomy. At the same time, MIS-TLIF may be a preferable surgical procedure in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hang Zhang & Junmao Gao & Qipeng Xie & Mingxin Zhang, 2025. "Comparison of 7 surgical interventions for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A network meta-analysis and systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(3), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309343
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309343&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0309343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.