ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019
Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis.
Article in 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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Imaging indicators and fusion analysis of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- 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
- Marker Screw Utilization for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF): Promises and Advantages.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Characteristics of interbody bone graft fusion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion according to intervertebral space division.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Review
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hybrid graft in patients with Modic changes undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Allografts and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to quantify the interbody bone graft area following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) and investigate their correlations with rates of fusion, complications, and clinical outcomes.
methodsPatients undergoing TLIF of 1 or 2 levels between October 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively included. Fusion and bone graft areas were assessed with computed tomography (CT) at 6 months postoperatively. The bone graft area ratio was defined as the bone graft area divided by the average endplate area. The distributions of bone graft area within the discs were also recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaires.
resultsIn total, 77 disc levels in 57 patients were analyzed. The fusion rate was 79.1% in the open group and 82.4% in the MIS group (p = 0.718). Clinical outcomes of both groups improved significantly. Changes in VAS and ODI scores at 12 months postoperatively were comparable between groups. Bone graft area ratio was not significantly different between the two groups (open, 38 ± 10.8%; MIS, 38.1 ± 9.0%, p = 0.977). Analysis of bone graft distribution revealed that the contralateral-dorsal part of the disc had the lowest bone graft area. The bone graft area ratio was significantly higher in the solid union group (39.2 ± 10.4%) than in the non-solid union group (33.5 ± 6.4%, p = 0.048).
conclusionsThe fusion rates, bone graft area ratios, clinical outcomes, and complications were similar between MIS and open TLIF. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31175483What 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.