SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2018
Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparing oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar instability.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022Article
- MIS TLIF, EndoTLIF, and the Ability of Navigation/Robotics to Enable Spinal Surgery in an Ambulatory Care Setting.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Biomechanical studies of different numbers and positions of cage implantation on minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: A finite element analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2021Article
- Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Lordosis Restoration With Midline Minimally Invasive Cortical Trajectory Screws (MidLF) and Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Safe Technique With a Short Stay.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of MRI Visualization Following Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Letter to the editor regarding "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 · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to manage the lumbar degenerative disease. However, whether MI-TLIF was superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) was controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes between the MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.
methodsTwo reviewers independently searched EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google database from inception to February 2018 for studies comparing the MI-TLIF and O-TLIF approach for single-level lumbar degenerative disease. The data were extracted and analyzed for primary outcomes such as total blood loss, visual analog score (VAS), and other secondary outcomes (length of hospital stay, operation time, fluroscopic time, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)). Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0.
resultsSeven RCTs were finally included in this meta-analysis. Compared with O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with significantly less blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 291.46; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 366.66 to - 216.47; P = 0.000,). There was no significant difference between the length of hospital stay, postoperative VAS, and ODI. Compared with O-TLIF, MI-TLIF was associated with an increase of the fluroscopic time (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe MI-TLIF showed significantly less blood loss compared with O-TLIF and more fluroscopic time. There was no significant difference between the length of hospital stay, postoperative VAS, and ODI. More high-quality studies and subsequent meta-analyses are needed in the future.
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.