Open Discectomy Versus Microscopic Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

60 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2015-03-04

Study Completion Date

2019-08-20

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

60 patients involved were divided into two matched groups; Group A: 30 patients were treated with conventional fenestration laminectomy and discectomy and Group B: 30 patients were treated with microdiscectomy. The age of the patients involved in this study ranged from 19 years old to 46 years old

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Effect of Duration of Symptoms on the Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Lumbar Microdiscectomy

NCT04538027

Lumbar Disc Herniation

COMPLETED NA

Full-Endoscopic vs Open Discectomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Herniated Disc

NCT02441959

Lumbar Disc Herniation

TERMINATED NA

Microdecompression Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterior Stabilization for Multilevel Lumbar Spine Stenosis

NCT04087694

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

COMPLETED NA

Surgical Treatment Comparison for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

NCT00444405

Low Back Pain Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation

WITHDRAWN

Microendoscopic Discectomy Vs Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Vs Open Discectomy

NCT02358291

Lumbar Disc Herniation

UNKNOWN PHASE1/PHASE2

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

60 patients involved were divided into two matched groups; Group A: 30 patients were treated with conventional fenestration laminectomy and discectomy and Group B: 30 patients were treated with microdiscectomy. The age of the patients involved in this study ranged from 19 years old to 46 years old. All the patient was suffering from symptomatic lumbar disc herniation L4-5. Each patient was assessed clinically and MRI was done for all the patients to prove clinically, the symptomatic lumbar disc herniation which was present in all patients.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Lumbar Disc Herniation

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Open discectomy

This group of patients are treated by open discectomy

Group Type OTHER

Microdiscectomy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Microdiscectomy

This group of patients are treated by Microdiscectomy

Group Type OTHER

Microdiscectomy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Microdiscectomy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Open discectomy

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Adults who are symptomatic lumbar disc herniation L4-5. Each patient was assessed clinically and MRI was done for all the patients to prove clinically, the symptomatic lumbar disc herniation which was present in all patients. Conservative treatment for 6weeks was failed