There is only one coronary artery that has been scientifically proven that, if stenosed, open heart surgery will prolong life, and that is the left main, i.e. the widow maker. It is the first artery to come off of your aorta and all other coronary arteries trace their roots back to it. That's why if it clogs you're a goner. It would compromise blood supply to the entire heart. Quick and easy death, though
. They probably don't have data on the lesser arteries of the heart because it becomes very very hard to truly measure the real success of the procedure when a heart attack in those arteries wouldn't likely result in death to begin with, just a really crappy day. The left main is pretty black and white. If it goes, you go. If the surgery prevents it from going and you live another 10 years and die from something else, well the surgery can be considered a success.
It's not recommended to stent the left main, though I have seen it done. That article is kind of brainless and misleading because they only measured placing stents in patients with STABLE coronary artery disease as a way to manage painful symptoms associated with stable coronary artery disease (shortness of breath, angina, fatigue, etc). Stents are best used for UNstable coronary artery disease, i.e. a heart attack, and swift intervention with a stent during a heart attack saves lives and can even prevent any permanent heart muscle damage from occurring. I deal with these types of patients on a daily basis, and if I should ever have "the big one," by all means throw a stent in. Sooner rather than later while you're at it. Stents DO help.
Backs are tricky tricky things to deal with. You can have a massively blown disc and never know it because the contents (nucleus pulposus) of that disc that spew out upon rupture may never come in contact with any nerves, nerve roots, or spinal cord. It would merely occupy "empty" space in the back bone. On the other hand, even a tiny bulge or rupture that happens near a nerve, nerve root, or the spinal cord will give you terrible symptoms. Even if you have horrible symptoms and the back surgery goes perfectly the surgery still could make matters worse. A known consequence of any surgery is the production of scar tissue. Scar tissue isn't very well behaved and can grow with a mind of it's own. If that scar tissue should get rampant enough to start growing onto the sensitive nerves around it (adhesions), guess what, back to mega pain. Please please please take care of your backs!! Any decent back surgeon will only operate as a last resort. Theoretically, the vast majority of back issues producing pain and mild neurologic symptoms (numbness, weakness, tingling, etc.) will resolve with conservative treatment. It takes a long long time and careful living to heal properly, though, and most people are unwilling to deal with it. Surgery should mostly be reserved for those who have enough neurologic compromise to really threaten function (foot drop, weak grip, muscle atrophy, etc). For example, not being able to run because you have back pain isn't really a good reason to have back surgery, IMO. Stop running, get proper therapy, and get better non-surgically, even if it takes a year.
Man we've digressed, still a fun discussion, lol.