SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2015
Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.
- ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-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 · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring the differences in radiologic and clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with single- and bi-planar expandable cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Report of Seven Cases with 12-Month Follow-Up.BioMed research international · 2019Trial
- 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
- Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Symptomatic Spondylotic Stenosis and Severe Disc Degeneration Without Scoliosis: Single-Institutional Case Series and Lessons Learned.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Modified Freehand Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Disease: 3-Year Multicenter Retrospective Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Risk Factors and Liability Distribution in Medical Disputes Related to Spinal Diseases: A Six-Year Retrospective Study in Beijing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Between 2 Expandable Cage Designs in Navigation-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Resident Training in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Comparison of mMO-TLIF via Midline Incision Versus MIS-TLIF via Wiltse Approach in Lumbar Degenerative Disease.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Titanium Cage Through Kambin's Triangle Without Facetectomy.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Free-Hand MIS TLIF without 3D Navigation-How to Achieve Low Radiation Exposure for Both Surgeon and Patient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional study of MIS TLIF in treatment of spondylolisthesis: initial good results from 92 Vietnamese patients.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Comparison of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: 2-year follow-up.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMeta-analysis was conducted to estimate whether MiTLIF could reduce the complication rate while maintaining the similar clinical result to that of open procedures.
methodsA search of the literature was conducted on pubmed or EMBASE. A database including patient clinical information was created. A systematic review of eligible studies with multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantitatively review the correlation of VAS improvement rate and the performance of MiTLIF.
resultsFourteen articles with a minimum of 12-month follow-up met our inclusion criteria. The hypothesis of homogeneity could be accepted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the summary risk ratio (odds ratio). In the pooled analysis, the summary risk ratio (odds ratio) in patients with MiTLIF against those with open procedure for fusion rate, complication rate and revision/readmission rate was 0.99 (p = 0.36), 1.15 (p = 0.5) and 2.59 (p = 0.003), respectively, suggesting that MiTLIF was a risk factor for revision/readmission. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the percentage of male patients and the length of surgery exert a significant impact on VAS improvement rate. The selection of MiTLF was not significant.
conclusionFusion rate and complication rate for both open and MiTLIF were similar. Moreover, the MiTLIF group tended to have a higher revision/readmission rate, which might be associated with the deep learning curve. Therefore, to achieve the level of surgical skill required of an MiTLIF surgeon, many years of training and experience are necessary. Otherwise, MiTLIF may yield unsatisfactory result upon patients.
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.