Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51510
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChotetawan Tanavaleeen_US
dc.contributor.authorWorawat Limthongkulen_US
dc.contributor.authorWicharn Yingsakmongkolen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanya Luksanapruksaen_US
dc.contributor.authorWeerasak Singhatanadgigeen_US
dc.contributor.otherKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Chulalongkorn Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T09:38:37Z-
dc.date.available2020-01-27T09:38:37Z-
dc.date.issued2019-08-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Neuroscience. Vol.66, (2019), 202-208en_US
dc.identifier.issn15322653en_US
dc.identifier.issn09675868en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85066110560en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51510-
dc.description.abstract© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is a common negative sequela of primary discectomy. Repeat discectomy versus spinal fusion is constantly debated, and successful outcomes from both treatments remain unclear. Several meta-analysis studies have not reported re-operative rates between the two treatment methods; therefore, we seek to report these outcomes in the following systematic review and meta-analysis design study. The primary objective was to compare re-operative rates between repeat discectomy and fusion treatment. The secondary objectives included comparing clinical improvement, operative time, blood loss, complications, and postoperative hospital stay between repeat discectomy and fusion treatment. The data were gathered from the following sources: PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, Cochrane database, and Google Scholars. Only comparative studies in humans were selected. There were initially 182 citations found. After the analysis, we found four studies that were compatible with our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the re-operative rate seemed to be higher in the discectomy group (9.09%) compared with the fusion group (2.00%), but the difference was not statistically significant. The primary cause of re-operation in the discectomy group is recurrent disc herniation. Two causes of re-operation in the fusion group are adjacent segmental degeneration and implant removal. Operative time and postoperative stay were significantly less in the discectomy group. The improvement rate was not different between the two groups. In conclusion, no difference in re-operation rates between the two surgical treatments was found based on the results of our study. Both treatment techniques have equal improvement rates and complications.en_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85066110560&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleA comparison between repeat discectomy versus fusion for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: Systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jocn.2019.05.004en_US
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85066110560&origin=inwarden_US
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2019

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.