ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Comparisons of Lumbar Muscle Performance Between Minimally-Invasive and Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery at 1-Year Follow-Up.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Evaluation of the Effect of MIS and COS Surgical Techniques on Patients with Spondylolisthesis using a Musculoskeletal Model.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
- Comparison of a novel hand-held retractor-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by the wiltse approach and posterior TLIF: a one-year prospective controlled study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective study.
objectiveMinimally-invasive lumbar fusion surgery (MIS) is a viable alternative to conventional open surgery (COS) for spinal disorders. Although MIS seems to be associated with less para-spinal muscle trauma, the actual back muscle performance after MIS and COS remain controversial. This study investigated post-operative para-spinal muscle performance, and the correlation between muscle dysfunction and clinical outcome.
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomized control study, 50 patients were enrolled and split into 2 groups: COS and MIS. We established a biomechanical model of the para-spinal muscle in the lumbar spine using electromyography (EMG) and specific muscle function tests. Functional outcomes were also reviewed and analyzed. All patients underwent EMG pre-operatively, and at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively. The para-spinal muscle performance was investigated by comparing the back muscle co-contraction ratio and the load transmission zone to the pre-operative data.
resultsTwenty-one patients in the COS group and 25 in the MIS group completed the study. Both groups showed a significant improved functional score. The abdominal and back muscle strengths were decreased post-operatively, and were then increased at 12 months post-operatively in both groups. During the perturbed balance task and static task, the MIS group exhibited a trend of recovery in comparison with the COS group. But, the back muscle performance at 12 months was poorer than the pre-op performance in both groups.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in clinical outcome and para-spinal muscle performance between groups. In both methods, the global muscle function had declined post-operatively.
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.