Scholarlink

<p>Lumbar disk herniation is a common clinical entity affecting about 1% of the entire population every year. The purpose of the present work is to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficiency of sequesterectomy and discectomy in the management of lumbar disk herniation.&#xa0;A systematic review and meta-analysis using the random effects method was performed. This search was applied through the 6th of March 2025 to PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Directory of Open Access Journals. The data collected included patient demographics, spinal level at which the operation occurred, duration of operation and hospital stay, outcome, recurrence rate as well as potential immediate and delayed complications.&#xa0;A total of 18 original studies with a cumulative number of 4394 patients were identified. No statistically significant difference was found in the re-herniation and complication rate between the two groups (OR: 1.058, 95% CI: 0.726–1.541, <i>p</i>=.769 and OR: 1.399, 95% CI: 0.964–2.032, <i>p</i>=.077 respectively). The same applied for mean hospital stay (standard difference in means: 0.206, SE = 0.167, <i>p</i>= .219). In contrast, mean operating time was found to be significantly shorter in the sequesterectomy group than in the discectomy group (mean 58.086&#xa0;min versus 72.885&#xa0;min respectively). As or the patient reported outcomes, VAS score for back pain two years after the operation was the only index that was significantly higher in patients with discectomy (standard difference in means: 0.348, SE = 0.172, <i>p</i>= .04).&#xa0;Based on the available data, the two approaches do not differ in terms of risk of reherniation, reoperation rate and postoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients that have undergone sequesterectomy could potentially benefit from a more significant reduction in back pain in the long run.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Sequesterectomy versus standard micro‑/open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月2日

查看全文
  • Sotirios Apostolakis,
  • Nikolaos Haliasos,
  • Lampis C. Stavrinou,
  • Pantelis Stavrinou

摘要

Lumbar disk herniation is a common clinical entity affecting about 1% of the entire population every year. The purpose of the present work is to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficiency of sequesterectomy and discectomy in the management of lumbar disk herniation. A systematic review and meta-analysis using the random effects method was performed. This search was applied through the 6th of March 2025 to PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Directory of Open Access Journals. The data collected included patient demographics, spinal level at which the operation occurred, duration of operation and hospital stay, outcome, recurrence rate as well as potential immediate and delayed complications. A total of 18 original studies with a cumulative number of 4394 patients were identified. No statistically significant difference was found in the re-herniation and complication rate between the two groups (OR: 1.058, 95% CI: 0.726–1.541, p=.769 and OR: 1.399, 95% CI: 0.964–2.032, p=.077 respectively). The same applied for mean hospital stay (standard difference in means: 0.206, SE = 0.167, p= .219). In contrast, mean operating time was found to be significantly shorter in the sequesterectomy group than in the discectomy group (mean 58.086 min versus 72.885 min respectively). As or the patient reported outcomes, VAS score for back pain two years after the operation was the only index that was significantly higher in patients with discectomy (standard difference in means: 0.348, SE = 0.172, p= .04). Based on the available data, the two approaches do not differ in terms of risk of reherniation, reoperation rate and postoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients that have undergone sequesterectomy could potentially benefit from a more significant reduction in back pain in the long run.