ArticleJournal of pain research2022
Comparison Between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Article 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 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Traditional Chinese exercises on pain and disability in middle-aged and elderly patients with lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: Radiographic and clinical outcomes in grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Indirect Decompression Using the Keyhole Transfacet Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Application.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Cage design-centric glider approach to full-endoscopic lumbar fusion: optimizing nerve root protection in facet-sparing and facet-resecting techniques.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Early experience with a rapid navigation system-assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic interbody fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Cage Position in Full-endoscopic Trans-Kambin's Triangle Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy for minimally invasive spinal fusion: Advancements in biomaterials and clinical outcome optimization.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Personalized and precise prediction of cage width and implantation angle in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an image analysis of combined application of CT and Surgimap.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy between Percutaneous Endoscopic Large channels nerve decompression through Translaminar approach and Percutaneous Endoscopy Conventional channels nerve decompression through Transforaminal approach for the treatment of degenerative L4/5 spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The treatment of continuous double-level lumbar degenerated disease with PE-TLIF: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Innovative 3D Navigation Module for Precise Unilateral Pedicle Screw Combined with Contralateral Translaminar Facet Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the early clinical effect of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in the treatment of middle-aged and elderly patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation accompanied by lumbar instability. Methods: From January 2019 to June 2020, a total of 82 consecutive patients were categorised into PE-TLIF group and MIS-TLIF group based on different surgical methods. The visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, perioperative objective serological index, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, time to back to work or normal life, and Modified MacNab score were used as the evaluation indexes. The differences between the two groups were analyzed and the clinical effects were compared. Results: The VAS back pain of PE-TLIF group was decreased compared to that of MIS-TLIF group in the postoperative 1 week and 1 month. The operative time in PE-TLIF group was obviously longer than that in MIS-TLIF group. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in PE-TLIF group than that in MIS-TLIF group. More intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage were recorded in MIS-TLIF group. Compared with MIS-TLIF, PE-TLIF surgery was associated with a shorter time to ambulation after surgery and a shorter time to back to work or normal life. Significant statistical differences were observed in IL-6, CRP, and CK on postoperative 3 days between the two groups. Conclusion: For middle-aged and elderly patients, PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF surgery both have obvious clinical efficacy and safety. However, with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter recovery time and less injury to the patients, people undergoing PE-TLIF surgery can return to work or normal life faster. It is speculated that PE-TLIF has a higher incidence of complications and recurrence rate than that MIS-TLIF. PE-TLIF may be a better choice for middle-aged and elderly patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation.
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.