Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36556198›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

Which Is Better in Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Lumbar Degenerative Disease of Two Segments: MIS-TLIF or OPEN-TLIF?

Weiran Hu, Guang Yang, Hongqiang Wang, Xiaonan Wu, Haohao Ma, Kai Zhang, Yanzheng Gao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Personalized Medicine for Orthopaedic Disorders.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Weiran HuDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Guang YangDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Hongqiang WangDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Xiaonan WuDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Henan University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Haohao MaDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Yanzheng GaoDepartment of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Zhengzhou University · CNZhengzhou People's Hospital · CN

Funding

the Henan Provincial Medical Science and Technology Tackling Program Joint Project LHGJ20200047the Henan Provincial Medical Science and Technology Tackling Program Provincial-Ministerial Co-construction Project SB201901085the Henan Provincial Medical Science and Technology Tackling Program Provincial-Ministerial Co-construction Project SBGJ2018076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OPEN-TLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: The clinical data of 112 patients were retrospectively analyzed, and were divided into an MIS-TLIF group and OPEN-TLIF group. The operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, bed rest time, the content of creatine kinase(CK) and complications, were recorded. VAS score and ODI index were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Bridwell grading was used to evaluate postoperative interbody fusion. Screw position was evaluated by Rao grading. Results: Compared with the OPEN-TLIF group, the MIS-TLIF group had longer operation times, more intraoperative fluoroscopy times, but shorter postoperative bed times (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood loss, postoperative drainage and postoperative CK content between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in VAS score and ODI index during the follow-up (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the distribution of type A screws, but the type B screw in the MIS-TLIF group was higher (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The postoperative quality of life score and radiological outcomes of the two types of surgery in two-level lumbar degenerative diseases was similar, and there was no significant difference in muscle injury and complications, but the operation time and intraoperative radiation exposurewere higher than in the OPEN-TLIF group, and the pedicle screws were more likely to deviate laterally out of the vertebral body. Therefore, OPEN-TLIF is recommended for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases of two segments.

Indexed as

clinical outcomelumbar degenerative diseaseMIS-TLIFTLIF

Identifiers

PMID36556198
PMCPMC9785381
OpenAlexW4311003949

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.