ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Application and thinking of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis.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 · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of learning curves and clinical efficacy of two endoscopic techniques for single segment lumbar degenerative disease.Scientific reports · 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
- Mid-term efficacy of non-contact orthopedic robot navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical efficacy and complications of MIS-TLIF and TLIF in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Clinical Effect of Minimally Invasive Microendoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation.Orthopaedic 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 55 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated at our hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Of the 55 patients, 35 who underwent MIS-TLIF were included in the MIS-TLIF group, and 20 who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were included in the PLIF group. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative drainage, postoperative landing time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative interbody fusion rate, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The patients in both groups were followed-up for at least 1.5 years (range, 18-30 months; with an average of 27.5±2.6 months). There was no significant difference in the operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding, VAS score for low back and leg pain, ODI score, interbody fusion rate, hospitalization expenses, and complication rate between the two groups (P>0.05). One patient had nail failure in the MIS-TLIF group, 1 patient in each group had nerve root irritation, and 1 patient in each group had superficial incision infection and local suture dehiscence. The postoperative drainage volume, postoperative landing time, and postoperative hospital stay of the MIS-TLIF group were less than those of the PLIF group (P<0.05). Conclusions: Compared to PLIF, the use of MIS-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases has a number of advantages, including more complete intraoperative hemostasis, less postoperative drainage, earlier landing, and faster discharge, and also significantly improves postoperative lumbar discomfort.
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.