↓ Skip to main content

Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001350.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

JN Alastair Gibson, Gordon Waddell

Abstract

Disc prolapse accounts for five percent of low-back disorders but is one of the most common reasons for surgery. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of surgical interventions for the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Spine and abstracts of the main spine society meetings within the last five years. We also checked the reference lists of each retrieved articles and corresponded with experts. All data found up to 1 January 2007 are included. Randomized trials (RCT) and quasi-randomized trials (QRCT) of the surgical management of lumbar disc prolapse. Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data from published papers. Additional information was sought from the authors if necessary. Forty RCTs and two QRCTs were identified, including 17 new trials since the first edition of this review in 1999. Many of the early trials were of some form of chemonucleolysis, whereas the majority of the later studies either compared different techniques of discectomy or the use of some form of membrane to reduce epidural scarring. Despite the critical importance of knowing whether surgery is beneficial for disc prolapse, only four trials have directly compared discectomy with conservative management and these give suggestive rather than conclusive results. However, other trials show that discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis and that in turn is better than placebo. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to standard discectomy. Recent trials of an inter-position gel covering the dura (five trials) and of fat (four trials) show that they can reduce scar formation, though there is limited evidence about the effect on clinical outcomes. There is insufficient evidence on other percutaneous discectomy techniques to draw firm conclusions. Three small RCTs of laser discectomy do not provide conclusive evidence on its efficacy, There are no published RCTs of coblation therapy or trans-foraminal endoscopic discectomy. Surgical discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc prolapse provides faster relief from the acute attack than conservative management, although any positive or negative effects on the lifetime natural history of the underlying disc disease are still unclear. Microdiscectomy gives broadly comparable results to open discectomy. The evidence on other minimally invasive techniques remains unclear (with the exception of chemonucleolysis using chymopapain, which is no longer widely available).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Lebanon 1 <1%
Unknown 207 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Other 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 55 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 29 14%
Unknown 65 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,277,319
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,687
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,290
of 87,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 87,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.