Observational studyMedicine2017
Comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis: A STROBE-compliant observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Post-traumatic Exacerbation of Grade II L5-S1 Spondylolisthesis Requiring Surgical Stabilization.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral fusion in Grade I/II Spondylolisthesis: A prospective study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Outcomes of surgical intervention for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative analysis of different surgical fixation techniques.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- A Comparative Study of a New Retractor-Assisted WILTSE TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and Traditional PLIF for Treatment of Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Innovative Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Instability: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2019Article
- Management of symptomatic degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.EFORT open reviews · 2018Article
- A UK-based pilot study of current surgical practice and implant preferences in lumbar fusion surgery.Medicine · 2018Observational
- Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery.Minimally invasive surgery · 2018Review
- A comparative study of L4-L5-S1 and L5-S1 vertebral fusion in high-grade L5-S1 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although spondylolisthesis was traditionally treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) was recently proposed as an alternative treatment for spondylolisthesis. However, no studies have focused on the comparison of these 2 techniques' outcome on spondylolisthesis.The operative reports and perioperative data of patients who underwent single-level primary open PLIF (n = 29) and MIS-TLIF (n = 26) for I/II spondylolisthesis were retrospectively evaluated. Patients' demographics, operative blood loss, hospital length of stay, creatine kinase (CK) level, radiographic fusion, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. Radiographic fusion was assessed using the Bridwell grading criteria. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Average follow-up was 28 ± 3.6 months (range 24-32 months). Bed rest time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and operative time in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the PLIF group (P < .05). The 3-month postoperative ODI and VAS in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly better than the PLIF group (P < .05). However, at the time of the last follow-up, both groups had similar ODI scores and complication, slip reduction, and spinal fusion rates (P > .05).Compared with PLIF, MIS-TLIF for grade I/II spondylolisthesis can achieve similar reduction and fusion results with better short-term quality of life, shorter hospital stays, less estimated blood loss, and shorter operative times.
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.