ArticleGlobal spine journal2015
Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Have Advantages over Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?
Article in Global spine journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06265038 (A Prospective, Single Center, Confirmatory Investigation to Evaluate the Performance and Safety of ReSpace TiCell Cage Implants in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 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.
A Prospective, Single Center, Confirmatory Investigation to Evaluate the Performance and Safety of ReSpace TiCell Cage Implants in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2017Pooled it
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Is flexion-extension imaging necessary for surgical decision-making in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis? Supine MRI and upright radiographs offer superior diagnostic value.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Swipe, watch, learn? An analysis of TikTok as a source of patient education on spondylolisthesis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for scoliosis: surgical technique for focal treatment of the lumbosacral fractional curve.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Can unilateral-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion replace the traditional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure for lumbar degenerative disc diseases?: a single center matched case-control mid-term outcome study.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Which Approach Leads to More Reoperations in Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Alone?International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- The effect of expandable versus static lordotic interbody implants in minimally invasive spine surgery: patient reported outcomes, sagittal alignment, and restoration of disc height and foraminal height.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- Outcomes of surgical intervention for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis of different surgical fixation techniques.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- Marker Screw Utilization for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF): Promises and Advantages.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Low-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Stabilization with Rigid Percutaneous Pedicle Screws.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023Article
- Comparison of 90-day complications and two-year reoperation rates between anterior and posterior interbody fusion for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.Neurospine · 2021Article
- A Comparison of Revision Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes for a 2-Level Posterolateral Fusion Augmented With Single Versus 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Expandable Interbody Fusion Cages: An Editorial on the Surgeon's Perspective on Recent Technological Advances and Their Biomechanical Implications.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2020Review
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods This study compared 24 patients undergoing TLIF and 32 patients undergoing PLF with instrumentation. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain, physical component summary (PCS) of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic parameters included slippage of the vertebra, local disk lordosis, the anterior and posterior disk height, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic parameters. Results The improvement of VAS of leg pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF unilaterally (3.4 versus 1.0; p = 0.02). The improvement of VAS of low back pain was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF (3.8 versus 2.2; p = 0.02). However, there was no significant difference in improvement of ODI or PCS between TLIF and PLF. Reduction of slippage and the postoperative disk height was significantly greater in TLIF than in PLF. There was no significant difference in local disk lordosis, lumbar lordosis, or pelvic parameters. The fusion rate was 96% in TLIF and 84% in PLF (p = 0.3). There was no significant difference in fusion rate, estimated blood loss, adjacent segmental degeneration, or complication rate. Conclusions TLIF was superior to PLF in reduction of slippage and restoring disk height and might provide better improvement of leg pain. However, the health-related outcomes were not significantly different between the two procedures.
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.