SynthesisScientific reports2022
Clinical outcomes, complications and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated With Reoperation After Minimally Invasive Tubular Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cohort Study of 756 Patients.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Computer-navigated transfacet uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a novel technique and illustrative case series.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Length of stay after lumbar decompressive surgery: prediction model, clinical reasons for prolonged stay, and association of prolonged stay with outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Postoperative complications and mechanical outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion: A propensity-matched analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Comparison between novel unilateral uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease with bilateral symptoms: A 1-year follow-up retrospective cohort study.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- 'Rebound Phenomenon' - a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Optimizing TLIF Approach Selection: An Algorithmic Framework with Illustrative Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advancements in Spinal Endoscopic Surgery: Comprehensive Techniques and Pathologies Addressed by Full Endoscopy Beyond Lumbar Disc Herniation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Rapid preparation of bioactive composites for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of two endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgical sequences for treatment of unstable lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- 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
- A novel simplified sonographic approach with fluoroscopy-controlled L5 transforaminal epidural injections in patients with high iliac crest: a retrospective study.JA clinical reports · 2024Article
- Technical Note on the Role of Kambin's Triangle in the Evolution of Total Joint Replacement of the Lumbar Spine.International journal of spine surgery · 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
- The novel Kambin Torpedo full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion technique: a case series.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a tantalum cage: lumbar lordosis redistribution and sacral slope restoration with a modified posterior technique.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023Observational
- Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of YouTube as an Information Source for Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.Cureus · 2023Article
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Review
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
This meta-analysis aims to determine the clinical outcomes, complications, and fusion rates in endoscopic assisted intra-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (iLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were: five or more consecutive patients who underwent iLIF or MI-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases; description of the surgical technique; clinical outcome measures, complications and imaging assessment; minimum follow-up of 12 months. Surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were extracted. Mean outcome improvements were pooled and compared with minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Pooled and direct meta-analysis were evaluated. We identified 42 eligible studies. The iLIF group had significantly lower mean intra-operative blood loss, unstandardized mean difference (UMD) 110.61 mL (95%CI 70.43; 150.80; p value < 0.0001), and significantly decreased length of hospital stay (UMD 2.36; 95%CI 1.77; 2.94; p value < 0.0001). Visual analogue scale (VAS) back, VAS leg and Oswestry disability index (ODI) baseline to last follow-up mean improvements were statistically significant (p value < 0.0001), and clinically important for both groups (MCID VAS back > 1.16; MCID VAS leg > 1.36; MCID > 12.40). There was no significant difference in complication nor fusion rates between both cohorts. Interbody fusion using either iLIF or MI-TLIF leads to significant and clinically important improvements in clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Both procedures provide high rates of fusion at 12 months or later, without significant difference in complication rates. iLIF is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay. Study registration: PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: Registration No. CRD42020180980, accessible at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ April 2020.
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.