ReviewJournal of pain research2022
Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via bilateral channel for lumbar degenerative disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Functional Outcome of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spondylolisthesis: An Observational Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Observational
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy (UBE) Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation in Obese Patients: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Innovative 3D Navigation Module for Precise Unilateral Pedicle Screw Combined with Contralateral Translaminar Facet Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of metabolic syndrome on morbidity and mortality following transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF).Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Does indirect decompression by oblique lateral interbody fusion produce similar clinical and radiological outcomes to direct decompression by open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrevious studies have demonstrated that minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is comparable to the open approach in terms of efficacy and safety. However, few comparative studies of surgical procedures in patients with obesity show that they may react differently to open-TLIF (O-TLIF) and MI-LTIF approaches. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe main indicators were complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and secondary indicators were operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay.
resultsNo significant differences in the VAS and ODI scores for back pain at the last follow-up and wound infection rates were observed between the two groups. Dural tear incidence and complication rate were significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group than that in the O-TLIF group (P = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively). No significant difference in operative time was found between the two groups. There was less blood loss and shorter hospital stay (P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively) in the MI-TLIF group than that in the O-TLIF group.
conclusionCompared with O-TLIF, MI-TLIF is an effective and safe surgical option for patients with obesity, which resulted in similar improvements in pain and functional disability, as well as a lower complication rate.
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.