ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021
Early Clinical Evaluation of Percutaneous Full-endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Pedicle Screw Insertion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- [Comparison of effectiveness between two endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion techniques and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of three methods of coaxial endoscopic lumbar fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Early-stage lumbar paraspinal muscle injury: endoscopic versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective comparative analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- 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
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation offers new treatment option for thoracolumbar burst fractures with secondary spinal stenosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of perioperative blood loss of three different posterior nonfusion decompression operations for single-segment lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- How to Set Working Cannula in Endoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Morphometric Analysis Based on Computed Tomography.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Mid-term efficacy of non-contact orthopedic robot navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion results in less perioperative opioid usage compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single institution, multi-surgeon retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.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
- Effect of Tranexamic Acid on Hidden Blood Loss in Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Study.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Foraminotomy in Stable Degenerative Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis with Radicular Leg Pain: A Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) performed by using a visualization system with that of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
methodsFrom June 2017 to May 2018, the data of a total of 78 patients who met the selection criteria were retrospectively reviewed and were divided into the Endo-TLIF group (40 cases) and the MIS-TLIF group (38 cases) according to the surgical method used. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale were administered preoperatively and at the 1-week, 3-month, and 1-2-year follow-ups. The fusion rate and major complications, including revision, were also recorded.
resultsAll the patients were followed up for 24 to 34 months, with an average follow-up of 30.7 months. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay for the Endo-TLIF group (60.56 ± 0.36 mL, 8.12 ± 0.92 days, respectively) were statistically significantly lower than those for the MIS-TLIF group (65.47 ± 0.91 mL, 9.66 ± 1.34 days, respectively) (P < 0.05). The VAS and JOA scores of the patients in the two groups at postoperative 1 week, 3 months, 1 year, 2 years (Endo-TLIF VAS: 4.16 ± 0.92, 3.72 ± 1.54, 1.32 ± 0.45, 1.29 ± 0.34; JOA:16.71 ± 0.99, 19.86 ± 0.24, 24.91 ± 0.97, 25.88 ± 0.52; MIS-TLIF VAS: 4.17 ± 1.41, 2.98 ± 0.91, 1.54 ± 0.32, 1.33 ± 0.18; JOA: 16.67 ± 0.67, 19.58 ± 0.65, 25.33 ± 0.73, 25.69 ± 0.33) were statistically significantly improved from the preoperative scores (Endo-TLIF: 8.45 ± 1.44, 14.36 ± 0.56; MIS-TLIF: 8.11 ± 0.93, 14.45 ± 0.34, respectively) (P < 0.01). The VAS and JOA scores of the Endo-TLIF group were statistically significantly better than those of the MIS-TLIF group at 3 months and 1 year after surgery (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the scores between the two groups at any of the other time points (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral altitude between the two groups at the 3-month (11.36 ± 0.23, 11.21 ± 0.42, respectively) or final follow-up (10.88 ± 0.64, 10.81 ± 0.39, respectively) (P > 0.05). Dural tears, cerebrospinal fluid leakage, infection, and neurologic injury did not occur. Both groups showed good intervertebral fusion at the last follow-up. The intervertebral fusion rate was 97.5% (39/40) in the Endo-TLIF group and 94.7% (36/38) in the MIS-TLIF group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (χ
conclusionEndo-TLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) performed by using a visualization system for lumbar degenerative disease may be regarded as an efficient alternative surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. It is a safe and minimally invasive way to perform this surgery and has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes.
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.