Trial reportBioMed research international2017
Standard versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Study.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03155789 (Clinical Outcome After Lumbar Fusion for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 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.
Clinical Outcome After Lumbar Fusion for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-level open vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and advanced meta-analytic assessment of prospective studies with at least two years follow-up.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
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: Radiographic and clinical outcomes in grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review.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 · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.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 · 2022Article
- Effects and Safety of Lumbar Fusion Techniques in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Does MIS-TLIF or TLIF result in better pedicle screw placement accuracy and clinical outcomes with navigation guidance?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Paraspinal Mini-Tubular Lumbar Decompression and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Grade I with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Cohort Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- 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
- Minimally invasive versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- 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
- [Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2020Review
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
Symptomatic spondylolisthesis patients may benefit from surgical decompression and stabilization. The standard (S) technique is a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Newer, minimally invasive (MI) techniques seem to provide similar results with less morbidity. We enrolled patients with at least 6 months of symptoms and image-confirmed low-grade spondylolisthesis, at a single academic institution, between 2011 and 2015. The patients were randomized to either S or MI TLIF. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement at 1 year. Secondary outcome measures included length of operation, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, and fusion rates at 1 year. Forty patients were enrolled in each group. The differences in mean operative time and estimated blood loss were not statistically significant between the two groups. The patients were discharged after surgery at 4.12 days for the S TLIF group and 1.92 days for the MI TLIF group. The ODI improvement was similar and statistically significant in both groups. The fusion was considered solid in 36 (90%) of patients at 1 year in both groups. In conclusion, the two techniques provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year. The patients undergoing MI TLIF had a shorter hospital stay. This trial is registered with NCT03155789.
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.