Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2013
Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3- to 4-year follow-up.
Trial report 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 41 papers, 7 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Pooled it
- Is MIS-TLIF superior to open TLIF in obese patients?: A 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 · 2018Pooled it
- Minimally invasive procedure reduces adjacent segment degeneration and disease: New benefit-based global meta-analysis.PloS one · 2017Pooled 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
- Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a 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 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
- Addition of TLIF does not improve outcome over standard posterior instrumented fusion. 5-10 years long-term Follow-up: results from a RCT.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 · 2017Trial
- Modified Freehand Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Disease: 3-Year Multicenter Retrospective Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- What Preoperative Factors Are Associated With Achieving a Clinically Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive LLIF surgery to decrease the occurrence of adjacent-segment disease compared to conventional open TLIF.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 · 2023Article
- 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
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Using Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Instrumentation Can Provide a Better Health-Related QOL in Early Stage Than Conventional Methods in the Treatment of Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Diseases.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome.Neurosurgical review · 2022Observational
- Fusion assessment in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Article
- Comparisons of Lumbar Muscle Performance Between Minimally-Invasive and Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery at 1-Year Follow-Up.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- What Affects Segmental Lordosis of the Surgical Site after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?Yonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- Obesity and Spine Surgery: A Qualitative Review About Outcomes and Complications. Is It Time for New Perspectives on Future Researches?Global spine journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSupporters of minimally invasive approaches for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have reported short-term advantages associated with a reduced soft tissue trauma. Nevertheless, mid- and long-term outcomes and specifically those involving physical activities have not been adequately studied. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of mini-open versus classic open surgery for one-level TLIF, with an individualized evaluation of the variables used for the clinical assessment.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted of 41 individuals with degenerative disc disease who underwent a one-level TLIF from January 2007 to June 2008. Patients were randomized into two groups depending on the type of surgery performed: classic open (CL-TLIF) group and mini-open approach (MO-TLIF) group. The visual analog scale (VAS), North American Spine Society (NASS) Low Back Pain Outcome instrument, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were used for clinical assessment in a minimum 3-year follow-up (36-54 months).
resultsPatients of the MO-TLIF group presented lower rates of lumbar (p = 0.194) and sciatic pain (p = 0.427) and performed better in daily life activities, especially in those requiring mild efforts: lifting slight weights (p = 0.081), standing (p = 0.097), carrying groceries (p = 0.033), walking (p = 0.069) and dressing (p = 0.074). Nevertheless, the global scores of the clinical questionnaires showed no statistical differences between the CL-TLIF and the MO-TLIF groups.
conclusionsDespite an improved functional status of MO-TLIF patients in the short term, the clinical outcomes of mini-open TLIF at the 3- to 4-year follow-up showed no clinically relevant differences to those obtained with open TLIF.
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.