SynthesisNeurosurgical review2018
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.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature.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 · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Long-term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) compared with open TLIF(O-TLIF): A retrospective cohort study for at least 5 years.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
- Comparative analysis of acute postoperative pain and opioid use between lateral transpsoas, anterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Gait analysis, trunk movements, and electromyographic patterns after minimally invasive spine surgery for lumbar instability: An observational prospective study.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Expert Consensus on Clinical Application of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Results From a Modified Delphi Study.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Elimination of Lumbar Plexus Injury by Changing the Entry Point and Traction Direction of the Psoas Major Muscle in Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Spine Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Deformity Correction with Interbody Fusion Using Lateral versus Posterior Approach in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Observational Meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome.Neurosurgical review · 2022Observational
- Article
- OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Can oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) create more lumbosacral lordosis in lumbar spine surgery than minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)?Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Circumferential Fusion Employing Transforaminal vs. Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Potential Impact on Implants Stability.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
- Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in a consecutive series of 72 patients.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2021Article
- Lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a cellular allogeneic bone matrix in the treatment of symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease and lumbar spinal instability.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28013419What 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.