SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2016
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies: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 · 2022Pooled it
- Tranexamic Acid for Blood Loss after Transforaminal Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study.BioMed research international · 2020Trial
- Nationwide analysis of spinal surgery in Japan from 1994 to 2021.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 · 2026Article
- Japanese 2021 nationwide survey on complications from spine 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 · 2025Observational
- Outcome and complication following single-staged posterior minimally invasive surgery in adult spinal deformity.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Long-Term Results of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and osterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4/5 lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in planned orthopaedic care.SICOT-J · 2024Article
- Do Diabetic Patients Have Poorer Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Latest Developments in Minimally Invasive Spinal Treatment in Slovakia and Its Comparison with an Open Approach for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using Lateral Oblique (Pre-psoas) Approach (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2021Review
- Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Have Similar Clinical Outcomes, Perioperative Complications, and Fusion Rates As Their Younger Counterparts.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Article
- [Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between two approaches in treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
- Feasibility of Virtual Reality Combined with Isocentric Navigation in Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Discectomy: A Cadaver Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare mTLIF vs. oTLIF with regard to peri-operative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay.
methodsThe PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant articles reporting patients undergoing TLIF, and a comparison between mTILF and oTLIF was performed. The database included patient demographic information, complications, operative time, fluoroscopic time, and the length of hospital stay.
resultsFourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The total number of subjects included was 901, of which 455 underwent mTLIF (50 %) and 446 underwent oTLIF (50 %). The operating time for the mTLIF was ranged from 116 to 390 minutes, compared with 102 to 365 minutes for oTLIF, the operating time tended to be longer in the mTLIF group than the oTLIF group. The estimated blood loss was lower in the mTLIF group, ranging from 51 to 578 ml in mTLIF and 225 to 961 ml in oTLIF, respectively. Length of hospital stay was short for the mTLIF with a 2.3 to 10.6 days hospitalization compared to 2.9 to 14.6 days for oTLIF. However the fluoroscopic time was consistently higher in the mTLIF group with a 49 to 106 seconds of fluoroscopy compared to 16.4 to 44 seconds for oTLIF. The complications divided into technical complications and infection complications. The main technical and infection complications included dural tears, screw malposition, and wound infection. Systemic complications included pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and DVT. The numbers of patients with complication was 54 out of 455 (11.87 %) in the mTLIF, and 64 out of 446 (14.35 %) in the oTLIF.
conclusionThe review shows mTLIF offers several potential advantages in reducing blood loss and the length of hospital stay, especially lowering the complication rates for patients compared with oTLIF. However, it required much more operative time and radiation exposure. Class I evidence and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26987979What 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.