ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2015
Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up.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 · 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
- Comparison of mMO-TLIF via Midline Incision Versus MIS-TLIF via Wiltse Approach in Lumbar Degenerative Disease.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Comparative study on the technique and efficacy of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF in lumbar revision surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery.Minimally invasive surgery · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApplication of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is limited by long fluoroscopy time and a steep learning curve. Herein, MI-TLIF was modified using a trans-multifidus approach, assisted by microscope, termed MMI-TLIF, and the clinical outcomes of MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF were compared.
methodsForty-nine patients treated with MMI-TLIF were matched with 49 subjects who underwent open-TLIF. Patients were assessed using the North American Spine Society Score (NASS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) before surgery and during follow-up (6 months and 2 years). The four-type Bridwell anterior fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates at 2 years.
resultsThe median fluoroscopic time did not differ significantly between the MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups. MMI-TLIF surgery took significantly longer than open-TLIF (91.3 vs. 82.5 min; P < 0.05). Meanwhile, MMI-TLIF patients lost significantly less blood than open-TLIF patients (75.3 vs. 215.2 ml; P < 0.05), and MMI-TLIF patients were hospitalized for less long than open-TLIF patients (3.7 vs. 6.9 days; P < 0.05) and reported less pain, faster ambulation, and lower morphine intake than open-TLIF patients (all P < 0.05). The NASS, ODI, VAS, and SF-36 scores were significantly improved 6 months and 2 years postsurgery in both groups, compared with preoperative values, and similar values were obtained for both groups. Finally, fusion rates were similar in MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF patients.
conclusionsOverall, these findings strongly suggest the superiority of MMI-TLIF to open-TLIF. Therefore, MMI-TLIF could be a safe and effective alternative to MI-TLIF and open-TLIF.
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.