ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2013
Comparison of minimally invasive fusion and instrumentation versus open surgery for severe stenotic spondylolisthesis with high-grade facet joint osteoarthritis.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of iatrogenic alterations on adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022Pooled it
- Minimally invasive procedure reduces adjacent segment degeneration and disease: New benefit-based global meta-analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- The Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Posterior Approach Spinal Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: The Current Evidence from Prospective Comparative Studies.BioMed research international · 2017Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications.International orthopaedics · 2016Pooled it
- Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.Chinese medical journal · 2016Pooled it
- Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Factors Associated With Reoperation After Minimally Invasive Tubular Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cohort Study of 756 Patients.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive vs. Traditional Open Spinal Fusion: A Comparative Analysis.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2025Article
- Less Is More: Evaluating the Benefits of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Management of Spinal Metastasis by Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques: Surgical Principles and Indications-A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- How to predict the culprit segment in percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery under local anesthesia for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases? Radiologic images or clinical symptoms.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Surgical Management of Post-Discectomy Syndrome.Asian spine journal · 2020Article
- Comparison of O-arm navigation and microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe object of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with open surgery in a severely affected subgroup of degenerative spondylolisthetic patients with severe stenosis (SDS) and high-grade facet osteoarthritis (FJO).
methodsFrom January 2009 to February 2010, 49 patients with severe SDS and high-grade FJO were treated using either MIS or open TLIF. Intraoperative and diagnostic data, including perioperative complications and length of hospital stay (LOS), were collected, using retrospective chart review. Surgical short- and long-term outcomes were assessed according to the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain.
resultsComparing MIS and open surgery, the MIS group had lesser blood loss, significantly lesser need for transfusion (p = 0.02), more rapid improvement of postoperative back pain in the first 6 weeks of follow-up and a shorter LOS. On the other hand, we experienced in the MIS group a longer operative time. The distribution on the postoperative ODI (p = 0.841), VAS leg (p = 0.943) and back pain (p = 0.735) scores after a mean follow-up of 2 years were similar. The overall proportion of complications showed no significant difference between the groups (29% in the MIS group vs. 28% in the open group, p = 0.999).
conclusionMinimally invasive surgery for severe SDS leads to adequate and safe decompression of lumbar stenosis and results in a faster recovery of symptoms and disability in the early postoperative period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.