SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2014
Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes.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
- A systematic literature review of time to return to work and narcotic use after lumbar spinal fusion using minimal invasive and open surgery techniques.BMC health services research · 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
- Is a drain tube necessary for minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion surgery?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
- Assessment of 'spin' in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading orthopaedic surgery journals over the past 10 years: a cross-sectional methodological study.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- Impact of Age on Hospital Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Retrospective Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database from 2016 to 2020.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Microscopically-assisted Uninstrumented Surgical Tumor Decompression as an alternative to open surgery for symptomatic metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Single Institution's Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Long-Term Results of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive vs. Traditional Open Spinal Fusion: A Comparative Analysis.Journal of spine research and surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of factors affecting the clinical management of infection in culture-negative patients following percutaneous endoscopic decompression: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for intraoperative blood transfusion prediction in severe lumbar disc herniation.iScience · 2024Article
- Comparison of Fusion Rates among Various Demineralized Bone Matrices in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Do Diabetic Patients Have Poorer Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- A Proposed Personalized Spine Care Protocol (SpineScreen) to Treat Visualized Pain Generators: An Illustrative Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Reoperations between Targeted Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery, Minimally Invasive TLIF and Open Laminectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Epidural Anesthesia: Technical Note and Initial Clinical Experience with One-Year Follow-Up.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Have Similar Clinical Outcomes, Perioperative Complications, and Fusion Rates As Their Younger Counterparts.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Rehabilitation of Microscopic "Over the Top" for Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.BioMed research international · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (open PLIF) is efficacious in management of lumbar spinal instability, concerns exist regarding lengthy hospital stays, blood loss, and postoperative complications. Minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS PLIF) may be able to address these concerns, but the research on this topic has not been systematically reviewed. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a systematic review to determine whether MIS PLIF or open PLIF results in (1) better perioperative parameters, including blood loss, operative times, and length of hospital stay; (2) improved patient-reported outcome scores; and (3) improved disc distraction and (4) frequency of reoperation and complications when compared with open PLIF procedures.
methodsA literature search of the MEDLINE database identified seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. A total of seven articles were included; quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) scale. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the included articles.
resultsIn most studies, MIS PLIF was associated with decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stay but longer operative times. MIS PLIF resulted in better patient-related outcomes when compared with open PLIF in two studies in the short term, but most of the studies in this review found no short-term differences, and there was no difference at long-term followup in any studies. There was no significant difference in disc distraction. Both techniques appeared to have similar complication rates and reoperation rates.
conclusionsBased on the available evidence, which we restricted to prospective and retrospective studies with control groups, but did not include any well-designed randomized trials, MIS PLIF might lead to better perioperative parameters, but there was little evidence for improved patient-reported outcomes in the MIS groups. Randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these two surgical techniques.
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.