SynthesisMedicine2019
An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcomes comparing minimally invasive with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) with bilateral decompression via unilateral approach and open-TLIF with bilateral decompression for degenerative lumbar diseases: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- 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
- Bibliometric analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: research status, trends, and future directions.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- 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
- Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023Review
- Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Comparison Between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Does a high BMI affect the outcome of minimally invasive TLIF? A retrospective study of 207 patients.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 · 2021Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Gelatin Sponge Impregnated with Dexamethasone and No Drainage Tube after Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease.Orthopaedic surgery · 2021Article
- 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
- Surgical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Highly Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- CORR Insights®: Elderly Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Have Similar Clinical Outcomes, Perioperative Complications, and Fusion Rates As Their Younger Counterparts.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion as a Revision Surgery for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation after Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2020Article
- Intradural Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical interventions in aging · 2019Review
- The current status and surgical outcome of the minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusion in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineReview
- Clinical and pathological considerations in lumbar herniated disc associated with inflammatory lesions.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsOpen-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) is regarded as the standard (S) approach which is currently available for patients with degenerative lumbar diseases patients. In addition, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has proposed and gradually obtained popularity compared with O-TLIF procedures due to its beneficial outcomes in minimized tissue injury and quicker recovery. Nonetheless, debates exist concerning the use of MI-TLIF with its conflicting outcomes of clinical effect and safety in several publications. The purpose of the current study is to conduct an updated meta-analysis to provide eligible and systematical assessment available for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of MI-TLIF in comparison with O-TLIF.
methodsPublications on the comparison of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in treating degenerative lumbar diseases in last 5 years were collected. After rigorous reviewing on the eligibility of publications, the available data was further extracted from qualified trials. All trials were conducted with the analysis of the summary hazard ratios (HRs) of the interest endpoints, including intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.
resultsAdmittedly, it is hard to run a clinical RCT to compare the prognosis of patients undergoing O-TLIF and MI-TLIF. A total of 10 trials including non-randomized trials in the current study were collected according to our inclusion criteria. The pooled results of surgery duration indicated that MI-TLIF was highly associated with shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and less complications. However, there were no remarkable differences in the operate time, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI between the 2 study groups.
conclusionThe quantitative analysis and combined results of our study suggest that MI-TLIF may be a valid and alternative method with safe profile in comparison of O-TLIF, with reduced blood loss, decreased length of stay, and complication rates. While, no remarkable differences were found or observed in the operate time, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI. Considering the limited available data and sample size, more RCTs with high quality are demanded to confirm the role of MI-TLIF as a standard approach in treating degenerative lumbar diseases.
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.