Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31331364›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis.

Ahmed Hammad, André Wirries, Ardavan Ardeshiri, Olexandr Nikiforov, Florian Geiger

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Ahmed HammadSpine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany. ahammad116@gmail.com.
André WirriesSpine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany.
Ardavan ArdeshiriSpine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany.
Olexandr NikiforovSpine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany.
Florian GeigerSpine Centre, Hessing Foundation, Hessingstrasse 17, 86199, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designThis study is a comparative, literature review.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review and a meta-analysis. Lumbar interbody fusion is a well-established surgical procedure for treating several spinal disorders. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was initially introduced in the early 1980s. To reduce approach-related morbidity associated with traditional open TLIF (OTLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MITLIF) was developed. We aimed to provide a comparative analysis of open vs. minimally invasive TLIF using a literature review.

methodsWe searched the online database PubMed (2005-2017), which yielded an initial 194 studies. We first searched the articles' abstracts. Based on our inclusion criteria, we excluded 162 studies and included 32 studies: 18 prospective, 13 retrospective, and a single randomized controlled trial. Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, radiation exposure time, complication rate, and pain scores (visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index) for both techniques were recorded and presented as means. We then performed a meta-analysis.

resultsThe meta-analysis for all outcomes showed reduced blood loss (P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.00001) for MITLIF compared with OTLIF, but with increased radiation exposure time with MITLIF (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in operative time between techniques (P = 0.78). The complication rate was lower with MITLIF (11.3%) vs. OTLIF (14.2%), but not statistically significantly different (P = 0.05). No significant differences were found in visual analogue scores (back and leg) and Oswestry Disability Index scores between techniques, at the final follow-up.

conclusionMITLIF and OTLIF provide equivalent long-term clinical outcomes. MITLIF had less tissue injury, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. MITLIF is also a safe alternative in obese patients and, in experienced hands, can also be used safely in select cases of spondylodiscitis even with epidural abscess. MITLIF is also a cost-saving procedure associated with reduced hospital and social costs. Long-term studies are required to better evaluate controversial items such as operative time.

Indexed as

HumansLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresObesityPain MeasurementSpinal DiseasesSpinal FusionInterbody fusionLumbarMinimally invasiveOpenTransforaminal

Identifiers

PMID31331364
PMCPMC6647286

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.