ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
A randomized controlled trial with ≥5 years of follow-up comparing minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in disc herniation at single level.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single segmental lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of bone graft products used in lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- A retrospective cohort study on the significance of preoperative radiological evaluation of lumbar degenerative diseases for surgical reference.Quantitative imaging in medicine and 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
- Comparison of minimally invasive and open TLIF outcomes with more than seven years of follow-up.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- A Comparison Between Retaining and Resecting the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Discectomy for Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.Global spine journal · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (m-TLIF) using transpedicular screws has various advantages over classical open (c-) TLIF. Up to date, comparative analyses of the TLIF procedures were following patients for <5 years. The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and complications of m- and c-TLIF in patients with single-level disc herniation with ≥5 years follow-up. Between June 2008 to July 2010, 91 patients with single-level lumbar degeneration were recruited and were randomly divided into two groups: m-TLIF and c-TLIF. The analyzed outcome measurements included: Surgery duration, intraoperative blood loss, X-ray exposure time, T2 relaxation time in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) scores, fusion rate and complications during follow-up. No significant differences between m- and c-TLIF were observed with respect to surgery duration (P=0.077), volume of blood loss (P=0.115), complications and the need for an additional surgery (P=0.632). Significant differences between the groups were observed for X-ray exposure time (P<0.001) and MRI T2 relaxation times at 3 months post-surgery (P<0.001). At day 7 post surgery, recorded VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved in the m-TLIF compared with the c-TLIF group and non-significant differences between the groups were observed at >1 month follow-up. m-TLIF was a safe and effective tool in treating single-level lumbar disc herniation. However, careful attention to the surgical technique and precise anatomical knowledge were required. Further studies and refinement of the surgical techniques are necessary prior to treating multiple or more extensive lesions using the m-TLIF method.
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.