SynthesisMedicine2016
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylosis: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- 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
- Better Functional Recovery After Single-Level Compared With Two-Level Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion.Cureus · 2022Article
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a silicon nitride cage demonstrates early radiographic fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Article
- Lordosis Restoration With Midline Minimally Invasive Cortical Trajectory Screws (MidLF) and Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Safe Technique With a Short Stay.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Lower complication and reoperation rates for laminectomy rather than MI TLIF/other fusions for degenerative lumbar disease/spondylolisthesis: A review.Surgical neurology international · 2018Review
- The use of platelet-rich fibrin in lumbar interbody fusion in lytic spondylolisthesis.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar spondylosis.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) of TLIF and PLF for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Trials performed before November 2015 were retrieved from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Chinese databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation of the trials were performed independently by 2 investigators. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0.
resultsTwo RCTs and 5 OSs of 630 patients were included. Of these subjects, 325 were in the TLIF and 305 were in the PLF group. Results showed that TLIF did not increase the fusion rate based on RCTs (relative risk [RR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.18; P = 0.321), but increased it based on OSs (RR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.07-1.23; P = 0.000) and overall (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05-1.18; P = 0.001) as compared with PLF. TLIF was able to improve the clinical outcomes based on 1 RCT (RR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.11-1.59, P = 0.002) and overall (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.07-1.33; P = 0.001), but not based on OSs (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27; P = 0.129) as compared with PLF. There were no differences between TLIF and PLF in terms of visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation, complications, duration of surgical procedure, blood loss, and hospitalization.
conclusionsIn conclusion, evidence is not sufficient to support that TLIF provides higher fusion rate than PLF, and this poor evidence indicates that TLIF might improve only clinical outcomes. Higher quality, multicenter RCTs are needed to better define the role of TLIF and PLF.
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.