SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2014
A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2018Pooled 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
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Three-stage anterior lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage retrieval: surgical steps and preliminary results.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Does adding an interbody cage in L4-L5 posterolateral fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis improve clinical outcome?Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- 24-month patient-reported outcomes for a novel lumbar total joint replacement.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Functional Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spondylolisthesis: An Observational Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Observational
- A single straight expandable cage via a hybrid posterior-transforaminal approach with rhBMP-2 or allograft provides high fusion rates with low risk of subsidence.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Surgical and non-surgical management of spondylolisthesis: a comprehensive review.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive versus Traditional Surgery: Efficacy of PELD and PLIF in Treating Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Evolution of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): From Open to Percutaneous to Patient-Specific.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Bibliometric analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: research status, trends, and future directions.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Comparison of the total and hidden blood loss in patients undergoing single-level open and unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Surgical techniques in restoration lumbar lordosis: a biomechanical human cadaveric study.Spine deformity · 2023Article
- Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion.Asian 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the perioperative results and complications associated with PLIF and TLIF, and collected evidence for choosing the better fusion method.
methodsA literature survey of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases identified 7 comparative observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. Checklists by Cowley were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. A database including patient demographic information, perioperative results, and complications was established. The summary odds ratio and weighed mean difference with 95% confidence interval were calculated with a random-effects model.
resultsWe found that PLIF had a higher complication rate (P <0.00001), and TLIF reduced the rate of durotomy (P = 0.01). No statistical difference was found between the two groups with regard to clinical satisfaction (P = 0.54), blood loss (P = 0.14), vertebral root injury (P = 0.08), graft malposition (P = 0.06), infection (P = 0.36), or rate of radiographic fusion (P = 0.27). The evidence indicated that PLIF required longer operative time (P = 0.03).
conclusionsThe evidence indicated that TLIF could reduce the complication rate and durotomy. Neither TLIP nor PLIF was found superior in terms of clinical satisfaction or radiographic fusion rate. PLIF might result in longer time in surgery.
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.