ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 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
- Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in PETLIF: Short-Term Perioperative Muscle Injury and Pain Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Postoperative complications and mechanical outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion: A propensity-matched analysis.North American Spine Society 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
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 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
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PETLIF): Current Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in surgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: We reviewed a total of 89 patients undergoing single-level surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from January 2018 to July 2021. The cases were categorized as PE-LIF (Group PE-LIF, 41 cases) or MIS-TLIF (Group MIS-TLIF, 48 cases) approach. Parameters obtained at baseline through at least six months of follow-up were collected. The surgical outcomes involving the operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative bed staying time, and length of hospital stays were analyzed. PROs included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab standard evaluation, intervertebral fusion rate, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 89 patients were included in this analysis involving 41 patients who underwent PE-LIF and 48 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF. The 2 groups were similar in gender, age, body mass index, follow-up time and surgery levels ( Conclusions: To summarize, PE-LIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective for LSS. PE-LIF has a definite short-term curative effect with less trauma.
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.