Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503024›Full record

SynthesisChinese medical journal2016

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Lei Xie, Wen-Jian Wu, Yu Liang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07127380 (MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07127380 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopernicus Memorial HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled100ConditionsLower Back Pain Chronic, Lumbar Degenerative Disease, Lumbar Disc Degeneration, Degenerative Disc Disease(DDD)ArmsMidline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF), Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Does minimally invasive spine surgery reduce the rate of perioperative medical complications? A retrospective single-center experience of 1435 degenerative lumbar spine surgeries.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 · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lei XieDepartment of Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025; Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases with Integrated Chinese-Western Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Wen-Jian WuDepartment of Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025; Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases with Integrated Chinese-Western Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Yu LiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025; Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases with Integrated Chinese-Western Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.

methodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.

resultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).

conclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.

Indexed as

HumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLength of StayLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSpinal FusionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID27503024
PMCPMC4989430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.