Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32528799›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2020

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion.

Chi Heon Kim, Kirk Easley, Jun-Seok Lee, Jae-Young Hong, Michael Virk, Patrick C Hsieh, Sangwook T Yoon

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation as effective as bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

7 authors.

Chi Heon KimSeoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Kirk EasleyThe Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4419-2617
Jun-Seok LeeEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jae-Young HongEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4948-4539
Michael VirkUSC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Patrick C HsiehWeill Cornell-New York Presbyterian Hospital, NY, USA.
Sangwook T YoonEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0497-1130

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designNarrative review.

objectivesIn this review, we address the question of whether the literature supports the notion that minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) improves outcome as compared with open TLIF (open-TLIF). Short and long-term outcomes, fusion rate, and cost-effectiveness were reviewed.

methodsThis is a narrative review using various databases. Open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF studies were included and posterior lumbar interbody fusion studies were excluded. A description of paramedian incision in surgical technique was essential to the definition of MIS-TLIF. The present review included 14 prospective observational studies and 6 randomized controlled trials.

resultsWith short-term outcomes, some studies indicate a better outcome with MIS-TLIF regarding intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, time to ambulation, postoperative narcotic use, and time to resume work. Both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF surgeries improved Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain. Some studies show that MIS-TLIF resulted in lower back pain than open-TLIF. Radiation exposure was higher with MIS-TLIF. In the longer term, clinical outcomes were improved in both MIS and open TLIF groups. Fusion rates were more than 90% in both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF. Cost-effectiveness and length of surgery had mixed results.

conclusionsThe potential benefits of MIS-TLIF might be present in the early recovery period after surgery. Long-term outcomes were similar with both MIS-TLIF and open-TLIF.

Indexed as

lumbar interbody fusionlumbosacral regionspinetransforaminalvertebrae

Identifiers

PMID32528799
PMCPMC7263326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.