ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
Clinical Effect of Minimally Invasive Microendoscopic-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Comparison of the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.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 · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of transforaminal approach spinal endoscopy in the treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation and the factors affecting its efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Hidden Blood Loss in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Analysis of Underlying Factors.Cureus · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through the Wiltse approach (W-TLIF) vs minimally invasive microendoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ME-TLIF) in single-segment lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to study the differences in specific clinical outcomes between single-segment LDH patients receiving W-TLIF and ME-TLIF. Single-segment LDH patients admitted to the Fujian Medical University Union Hospital from March 2015 to June 2018 were included. All the participants were divided into the ME-TLIF group or the W-TLIF group according to their TLIF surgery types. Demographic characteristics, the visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scale, blood loss volume, postoperative drainage, ambulated time, initial postoperative back pain, hospitalization duration, expenses, and improvement rates of patients in the two groups were collected for analysis. Radiographic fusion was ultimately assessed via the Bridwell interbody fusion grading system. All selected patients with TLIF were followed up for 1 year.
resultsFifty-seven patients were selected, with 26 in the ME-TLIF group and 31 in the W-TLIF group, both of whom were followed up for 1 year. The mean age of the included patients was 53.75 ± 9.313 years, and the sex ratio was indiscrimination. There was no significant difference in demographic data or operating time between the two groups prior to surgery. The blood loss volume (ME-TLIF: 228.5 vs W-TLIF: 681.3), postoperative drainage (ME-TLIF:82.1 ± 23.5 vs W-TLIF: 345.8 ± 65.2), initial postoperative back pain (ME-TLIF: VAS_3 days: 1.96 ± 0.60 VAS_7 days: 1.73 ± 0.53, W-TLIF: VAS_3 days: 2.48 ± 0.51 VAS_7 days: 1.87 ± 0.43), and hospitalization duration (ME-TLIF: 9.04 vs. W-TLIF: 11.29) were all significantly lower in the ME-TILF group (p < 0.05). However, there were no statistical differences between the two groups in VAS, ODI, and JOA at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively (p > 0.05). The fusion rates of the two groups showed no notable difference (p > 0.05), while the X-ray exposure time in the ME-TLIF group was significantly longer than in the W-TLIF group (p < 0.05).
conclusionsME-TLIF surgery was an effective and satisfactory surgical technique to manage LDH. Although ME-TLIF increased the operation time and intraoperative fluoroscopic irradiation volume, it could effectively relieve low back pain from early postoperative onset and promote early postoperative recovery compared with W-TLIF.
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.