ReviewCureus2017
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Laminectomy/Discectomy, Transforaminal Lumbar, and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Endoscopic decompression alone for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paired change scores.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 · 2026Review
- Observational
- Impact of preoperative back pain severity on PROMIS outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression.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
- Automatic image registration on intraoperative CBCT compared to Surface Matching registration on preoperative CT for spinal navigation: accuracy and workflow.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive tubular approach to intramedullary cavernous malformations.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- The Impact of Preoperative Adaptive Training on Postoperative Outcomes in Lumbar Spine Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Surgery for Metastatic Spinal Disease in Octogenarians and Above: Analysis of 78 Patients.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Instrumentation of the Cervical Spine: Past, Present, and Future.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023Article
- Intra-operative wearable visualization in spine surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Review
- Evolving Navigation, Robotics, and Augmented Reality in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- A New Shielding Curtain for Protection of Intraoperative Radiation During Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Neurospine · 2020Article
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Ti- and CaP-Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone Cages: Comparative Study of the 1-Year Radiological and Clinical Outcome.International journal of spine surgery · 2019Article
- Unilateral discectomy: outcomes, postoperative pain, complications.European journal of translational myology · 2019Article
- Article
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
Minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) are becoming increasingly favored as alternatives to open spine procedures because of the reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, and recovery time. Studies have shown mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive procedures compared to the traditional, open counterparts. The objectives of this systematic analysis are to compare clinical outcomes between the three MISS and open procedures: (1) laminectomy/discectomy, (2) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and (3) posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The Cochrane and PubMed databases were queried according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and blood loss. A total of 32 studies were included in the analysis. Of the three procedures investigated, only MISS TLIF showed significantly improved VAS for leg pain (p = 0.02), ODI (p = 0.05), and reduced blood loss (p = 0.005). MISS-laminectomy/discectomy, TLIF, and PLIF appear to be similar in terms of postoperative pain and perioperative blood loss. MISS TLIF is perhaps more effective in specific outcome measures and results in less intraoperative blood loss than open TLIF.
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.