Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34551928›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2021

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries.

Hitesh N Modi, Utsab Shrestha

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07127380 (MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07127380 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopernicus Memorial HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled100ConditionsLower Back Pain Chronic, Lumbar Degenerative Disease, Lumbar Disc Degeneration, Degenerative Disc Disease(DDD)ArmsMidline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF), Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Hitesh N ModiDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospital and Healthcare Research Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Utsab ShresthaDepartment of Spine Surgery, Zydus Hospital and Healthcare Research Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this study was to compare clinical and radiologic parameters between minimally invasive surgery-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF.

methodsData of 145 patients who underwent single- or double-level TLIF procedures with an open (n = 76) or a MIS (n = 69) technique were analyzed. Average operation time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were compared between open TLIF and MIS-TLIF. Improvement in clinical scores was analyzed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in both groups and statistically compared using

resultsAverage follow-up was 35.8 ± 15.4 months in open TLIF and 37.9 ± 14.4 months in MIS-TLIF. The average blood loss and operation times were higher and hospital stay was less in MIS-TLIF compared to open TLIF. VAS scores were improved from preoperative (8.5 ± 0.6) to postoperative (2.1 ± 0.8) and preoperative (8.4 ± 0.8) to postoperative (2.0 ± 0.7) in open TLIF and MIS-TLIF, respectively (

conclusionsOpen TLIF and MIS-TLIF are equally efficient surgical techniques with similar clinical and radiologic outcomes. MIS-TLIF is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay; however, it increases operation time significantly.

Indexed as

clinical outcomecomparisonMIS-TLIFopen TLIFradiologic outcome

Identifiers

PMID34551928
PMCPMC8651197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.