Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Cochrane Review of Surgery for Lumbar Disc Prolapse and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylosis

Gibson, J. N. Alastair, Grant, Inga C., Waddell, Gordon·1999·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To collate the scientific evidence on surgical management for lumbar-disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical investigations and interventions account for as much as one third of the health care costs for spinal disorders, but the scientific evidence for most procedures still is unclear. METHODS: A highly sensitive search strategy identified all published randomized controlled trials. Cochrane methodology was used for meta-analysis of the results. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and 14 trials of surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis were identified. Methodologic weaknesses were found in many of the trials. Only one trial directly compared discectomy and conservative management. Meta-analyses showed that surgical discectomy produces better clinical outcomes than chemonucleolysis, which is better than placebo. Three trials showed no difference in clinical outcomes between microdiscectomy and standard discectomy, but in three other studies, both produced better results than percutaneous discectomy. Three trials showed that inserting an interposition membrane after discectomy does not significantly reduce scar formation or alter clinical outcomes. Five heterogeneous trials on spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis permit very limited conclusions. There were nine trials of instrumented versus noninstrumented fusion: Meta-analysis showed that instrumentation may facilitate fusion but does not improve clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is now strong evidence on the relative effectiveness of surgical discectomy versus chemonucleolysis versus placebo. There is considerable evidence on the clinical effectiveness of discectomy for carefully selected patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc prolapse that fails to resolve with conservative management. There is no scientific evidence on the effectiveness of any form of surgical decompression or fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylosis compared with natural history, placebo, or conservative management. The Cochrane reviews will be updated continuously as other trials become available.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Gibson, J. N. A., Grant, I. C., & Waddell, G.
Venue
Spine
Published
1999-09
Volume
24
Issue
17
Pages
1820
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044539117
Cited by
396
References
2
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Cochrane Review of Surgery for Lumbar Disc Prolapse and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012
The paper
Gibson, J. N. A., Grant, I. C., & Waddell, G. (1999). The Cochrane Review of Surgery for Lumbar Disc Prolapse and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylosis. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.