Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29343248›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018

Minimally invasive versus open Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in obese patients: a meta-analysis.

Qingsong Xie, Jing Zhang, Feng Lu, Hao Wu, Zan Chen, Fengzeng Jian

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Integration of a mobile robotic cone beam CT scanner in pediatric neurosurgery.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Minimally Invasive Spine Lumbar Surgery in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Qingsong XieDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Division of Spine, China International Neurological Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Capital Medical University Affiliated Beijing Friendship Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Feng LuDepartment of Neurosurgery, south branch of Fujian provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hao WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Division of Spine, China International Neurological Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zan ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Division of Spine, China International Neurological Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Fengzeng JianDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Division of Spine, China International Neurological Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China. fengzengjian@hotmail.com.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Friendship Hospital · CNFujian Provincial People's Hospital · CN

Funding

Ningbo Natural Science Foundation 2014A610253Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China LY15H090018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been employed in increasing cases compared with open TLIF (Open-TLIF). However, it is uncertain whether the advantages of MI-TLIF can also be specifically applied in obese patients. Therefore, the current study was thereby carried out aiming to compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF with those of Open-TLIF in obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.

methodsElectronic databases were systemically retrieved from construction to May 2017. Meanwhile, the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.

resultsA total of 7 observational cohort studies were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. The results indicated that, compared with Open-TLIF group, MI-TLIF could remarkably reduce the operative time (P = 0.002), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative drainage (P = 0.01), length of stay (P < 0.001) and incidence of complications (P < 0.001). In addition, MI-TLIF could also lead to markedly lower early back pain-Visual Analog Scale (BP-VAS) score than that of Open-TLIF (P < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), late BP-VAS, early leg pain-VAS (LP-VAS) and late LP-VAS scores.

conclusionMI-TLIF may be a more preferred choice for obese patients undergoing spinal surgery. However, differences in the long-term functional and pain outcomes between MI-TLIF and Open-TLIF remain a source of controversy, which should be further verified in future randomized-control trials.

Indexed as

HumansLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresObesityObservational Studies as TopicSpinal FusionTreatment OutcomeLumbar degenerative diseasesMeta-analysisObeseTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID29343248
PMCPMC5773142
OpenAlexW2795891036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.