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
Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation.
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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Standard versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study.BioMed research international · 2017Trial
- CORR Insights®: Is Civilian Hospital Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Disorders Associated With Greater Odds of Fusion Procedures?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Article
- Trends and Themes in the Study of Value in Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2025Review
- Effect of Instrumented Spine Surgery on Length of Stay.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Determining the learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Comparing Open and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Prevalence and Modes of Posterior Hardware Failure With a Staged Protocol for Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgical Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity: A 13-Year Experience.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Single Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Expandable Interbody Spacers Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
- Economic Value in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2019Review
- Outcomes of direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) in an Australian cohort.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2019Article
- Evidence Based Medicine Review of Posterior Thoracolumbar Minimally Invasive Technology.International journal of spine surgery · 2018Article
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Experience with 2-Year Follow-Up.BioMed research international · 2018Article
- Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the cost-utility and perioperative costs of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) versus open-TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathologies.
methodsRelevant articles were identified from six electronic databases. Predefined end points were extracted and meta-analysis conducted from the identified studies.
resultsFor each study, the direct hospital cost for MI-TLIF was found to be less than that of open-TLIF. When these outcomes were pooled, direct hospital costs were found to be significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group [weighted mean difference (WMD), -$2820; I (2) = 61 %; P < 0.00001]. MI-TLIF was also associated with shorter hospitalization (WMD, 0.99; 95 % CI -1.81, -0.17; I (2) = 96 %; P = 0.02), trend toward reduced complications (relative risk 0.53; 95 % CI 0.23, 1.06; I (2) = 0 %; P = 0.07), and reduced blood loss (WMD, -246.40 mL; I (2) = 98 %; P = 0.003), but was not associated with a significant difference in operation time (WMD, -67.05; 95 % CI -169.44, 35.35; I (2) = 100 %; P = 0.20).
conclusionsFrom the limited evidence, the available data suggest a trend of significantly reduced perioperative costs, length of stay, and blood loss for minimally invasive compared with open surgical approaches for TLIF. MI-TLIF may represent an opportunity for optimal utilization and allocation of health-care resources from both a hospital and societal perspective.
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.