ArticleAsian spine journal2018
Clinical and Radiological Comparison between Three Different Minimally Invasive Surgical Fusion Techniques for Single-Level Lumbar Isthmic and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Minimally Invasive Surgical Posterolateral Fusion versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion versus Midline Lumbar Fusion.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in PETLIF: Short-Term Perioperative Muscle Injury and Pain Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of midline lumbar fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in osteoporotic L4/5 spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Real-world clinical accuracy of long cortical bone trajectory screw placement using a patient-specific template guide.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF.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 · 2023Article
- Marker Screw Utilization for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF): Promises and Advantages.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Comparative Clinical Analysis of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L5/S1 versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) for Degenerative Lumbosacral Disorders.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
- Application of the cortical bone trajectory technique in posterior lumbar fixation.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Cortical bone trajectory screws in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in patients with osteoporosis.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
- Radiological and clinical outcomes of midline lumbar fusion on sagittal lumbar-pelvic parameters for degenerative lumbar diseases.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Lordosis loss in degenerative spinal conditions.Spine deformity · 2022Article
- Cortical Trajectory Screw Fixation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Review of the Existing Literature.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Bone-Mounted Robotic System in Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery for Osteoporosis Patients: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.Clinical interventions in aging · 2022Article
- Location of pedicle screw hold in relation to bone quality and loads.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Understanding the Future Prospects of Synergizing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery with Ceramics and Regenerative Cellular Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Minimally invasive tubular laminectomies in multilevel spine surgery-an illustrative case-based review of techniques and combined approaches.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Review
- Risk Factor Analysis of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis after Surgical Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity with Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Comparison of Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Posterior Fixation in Lateral Position and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- CORR Insights®: What Are the Patient-reported Outcomes, Complications, and Radiographic Results of Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis in Patients Younger Than 50 Years?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: Comparison between three different minimally invasive surgical (MIS) fusion techniques for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been an increase in the development and utilization of MIS techniques for lumbar spine fusion. No study has compared the efficacy of MIS-posterolateral fusion (MIS-PLF), MIS-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) with modified cortical bone trajectory screws for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
methodsFifty-nine patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis and a minimum follow-up period of 1 year were included in this study. The MIS-PLF, MIS-TLIF, and MIDLF groups included 22, 15, and 22 patients, respectively. The average age of the groups was 70.6, 49.3, and 62.7 years, respectively. The evaluation parameters were operation time, intraoperative bleeding, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) value, creatine kinase (CK) value, and overall functional outcome as per the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) score. The changes in the lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), segmental disc angle (SDA), and disc height were measured. Fusion rate, screw loosening, and loss of correction were also assessed.
resultsMIDLF showed a significantly shorter operation time (111 min), less bleeding amount (112.5 mL), and lower values of CRP and CK than the other two techniques. There was no significant difference in the JOABPEQ scores of the three groups. MIDLF resulted in a greater increase in the LLA and SDA postoperatively. MIDLF and MIS-TLIF resulted in a significant increase in the middle disc height compared with MIS-PLF. MIDLF showed a lower loss of correction after 6 months postoperatively (2.6%) than MIS-PLF (5.2%) and MIS-TLIF (4.2%). The fusion rate was 100% in the MIDLF and MIS-TLIF groups and 90% in the MIS-PLF group. Screw loosening occurred in 10% of the MIS-PLF cases, 7.14% of the MIS-TLIF cases, and 4.76% of the MIDLF cases.
conclusionsMIDLF was the least invasive, and there was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of fusion, screw loosening, and clinical outcomes.
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.