ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Comparison of percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segmental lumbar degenerative diseases.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Double-Cage Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Navigation-assisted vs robot -assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective comparative study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Postoperative complications and mechanical outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion: A propensity-matched analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters of percutaneous endoscopic posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using rammed-earth technique.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- The Learning Curve of Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of UBE-PLIF versus conventional PLIF in the treatment of L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion through different surgical approaches: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a technical note with 2-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar instability and analysis of prognostic factors.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Comparative clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion, biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the short-term efficacy of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for the treatment of two-segment lumbar degenerative disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Early result of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.Neurosurgical review · 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
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Construction and validation of a predictive model for postoperative urinary retention after lumbar interbody fusion surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Does Immediate Postoperative Early Ambulation Affect Clinical Results of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy? A Historical Control Study of Daytime Operation with a 8-Hour Hospital Stay versus Inpatient Operation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has become an emerging technique. Some researchers have reported the technique of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We propose percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) as an alternative approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy of PE-PLIF by comparing percutaneous endoscopic and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
methodsThirty patients were enrolled in each group. Demographic data, perioperative data, and radiological parameters were collected prospectively. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
resultsThe background data were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time was longer in the PE-PLIF group. The PE-PLIF group showed benefits in less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. VAS and ODI scores significantly improved in both groups. However, the VAS score of low-back pain was lower in the PE-PLIF group. The satisfaction rate was 96.7% in both groups. The radiological outcomes were similar in both groups. In the PE-PLIF group, the fusion rate was 93.3%, and the cage subsidence rate was 6.7%; in the open PLIF group, the fusion and cage subsidence rates were 96.7% and 16.7%. There were minor complications in one patient in the PE-PLIF group and two in the open PLIF group.
conclusionsThe current study revealed that PE-PLIF is safe and effective compared with open PLIF. In addition, this minimally invasive technique may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing tissue damage and blood loss.
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.