SynthesisJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation2022
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single segmental lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 2022. 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 9 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.
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
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via bilateral channel for lumbar degenerative disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-year Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of multi‑segmental lumbar degenerative disease: A systematic evaluation and meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Decellularized matrix for repairing intervertebral disc degeneration: Fabrication methods, applications and animal models.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- [Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, and fenestration discectomy in treatment of lumbar disc herniation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies on the comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) have been published, but there is no clear conclusion.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MIS-TLIF compared with O-TLIF in the treatment of LDH in the Chinese population by meta-analysis.
methodsStudies on the treatment of LDH by MIS-TLIF versus O-TLIF were searched in Pubmed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, CNKI, VIP and China Wanfang databases from the establishment of the databases to January 2020. The meta-analysis was used to analyze the pooled operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative ground movement time, Waist and leg Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) score. Mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference (SMD) were used as the effect size.
resultsEleven studies with 1132 patients were included. The results showed that MIS-TLIF compared with O-TLIF, MD =-133.82 (95% CI: -167.10 ∼-100.53, P< 0.05) in intraoperative blood loss, MD =-114.43 (95% CI: -141.12 ∼-87.84, P< 0.05) in postoperative drainage, MD =-3.30 (95% CI: -4.31 ∼-2.28, P< 0.05) in postoperative ground movement time, SMD =-1.44 (95% CI: -2.63 ∼-0.34, P< 0.05) in postoperative low back pain VAS score, SMD = 0.41 (95% CI: 0.15 ∼ 0.66, P< 0.05) in postoperative JOA score, MD = 4.12 (95% CI: -11.64 ∼ 19.87, P> 0.05) in the average operation time, SMD =-0.00 (95% CI: -0.36 ∼ 0.36, P> 0.05) in leg pain VAS score, and SMD =-0.59 (95% CI: -1.22 ∼ 0.03, P> 0.05) in ODI score.
conclusionMIS-TLIF was superior to O-TLIF in the treatment of LDH, especially in the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative ground movement time and low back pain in the Chinese population.
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.