ArticlePloS one2015
Surgical data and early postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: results of a prospective, multicenter, observational data-monitored study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: 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 · 2019Pooled 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
- Time Course of Functional Recovery Following Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with and Without Posterior Instrumentation: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Neuropathic pain appears to be the main symptom associated with higher disease burden and lower pain alleviation in degenerative lumbar disease fusion patients.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) do not increase blood loss or the incidence of postoperative epidural hematomas when using minimally invasive fusion techniques in the degenerative lumbar spine.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Accidental Dural Tears in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Are the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal/Posterior Lumbar Fusion Influenced by the Patient's Age or BMI?Clinical spine surgery · 2020Observational
- Surgical and Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Spinal Fusion Surgery in an Unselected Patient Cohort of a Spinal Care Unit.Orthopaedic surgery · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledMinimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MILIF) offers potential for reduced operative morbidity and earlier recovery compared with open procedures for patients with degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD). Firm conclusions about advantages of MILIF over open procedures cannot be made because of limited number of large studies of MILIF in a real-world setting. Clinical effectiveness of MILIF in a large, unselected real-world patient population was assessed in this Prospective, monitored, international, multicenter, observational study.
objectiveTo observe and document short-term recovery after minimally invasive interbody fusion for DLD. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a predefined 4-week analysis from this study, experienced surgeons (≥ 30 MILIF surgeries pre-study) treated patients with DLD by one- or two-level MILIF. The primary study objective was to document patients' short-term post-interventional recovery (primary objective) including back/leg pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), health status (EQ-5D) and Patient satisfaction.
resultsAt 4 weeks, 249 of 252 patients were remaining in the study; the majority received one-level MILIF (83%) and TLIF was the preferred approach (94.8%). For one-level (and two-level) procedures, surgery duration was 128 (182) min, fluoroscopy time 115 (154) sec, and blood-loss 164 (233) mL. Time to first ambulation was 1.3 days and time to study-defined surgery recovery was 3.2 days. Patients reported significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced back pain (VAS: 2.9 vs 6.2), leg pain (VAS: 2.5 vs 5.9), and disability (ODI: 34.5% vs 45.5%), and a significantly (P < 0.0001) improved health status (EQ-5D index: 0.61 vs 0.34; EQ VAS: 65.4 vs 52.9) 4 weeks postoperatively. One adverse event was classified as related to the minimally invasive surgical approach. No deep site infections or deaths were reported.
conclusionsFor experienced surgeons, MILIF for DLD demonstrated early benefits (short time to first ambulation, early recovery, high patient satisfaction and improved patient-reported outcomes) and low major perioperative morbidity at 4 weeks postoperatively.
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.