Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064875›Full record

Observational studyNeurosurgical review2022

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, controlled observational study of short-term outcome.

Sebastian Hartmann, Anna Lang, Sara Lener, Anto Abramovic, Lukas Grassner, Claudius Thomé

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Long-term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) compared with open TLIF(O-TLIF): A retrospective cohort study for at least 5 years.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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian Hartmann *Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria. sebastian.hartmann@i-med.ac.at.
Anna Lang *Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sara LenerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Anto AbramovicDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Lukas GrassnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Claudius ThoméDepartment of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Innsbruck Medical University · ATUniversität Innsbruck · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 ± 13 vs. 56.0 ± 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionSpondylolisthesisBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPostoperative PainPostural BalanceProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesTime and Motion StudiesTreatment OutcomeMIS techniquesMIS-TLIFSpondylolisthesis

Identifiers

PMID36064875
PMCPMC9492567
OpenAlexW4294675659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.