ReviewGlobal spine journal2024
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.
Review in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 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
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and quality of life in elderly patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated with TLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation: a randomized controlled study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Unilateral uniportal endoscopy with unilateral fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: A retrospective observational study and technical note.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- Indirect Decompression Using the Keyhole Transfacet Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Application.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk factors and external validation of nomogram model for patients with postoperative hemoglobin < 80 g/L after lumbar interbody fusion surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparison between novel unilateral uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease with bilateral symptoms: A 1-year follow-up retrospective cohort study.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- L5-S1 Anatomic Features Relevant to Minimally Invasive Decompression and Fusion: A Cadaveric and Imaging-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Trajectory and influencing factors of changes in anxiety and depression in elderly patients after lumbar interbody fusion.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Innovative method for efficient placement of a working cannula in uniportal transarticular full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: transarticular trephonic plasty (TTP).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
- Complication assessment in full-endoscopic uniportal lumbar spine surgery: A prospective analysis from 304 patients.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via bilateral channel for lumbar degenerative disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bone cement-reinforced pedicle screws for osteoporosis combined with lumbar degenerative disease.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Early-stage lumbar paraspinal muscle injury: endoscopic versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective comparative analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Totally endoscopic trans‑superior articular process lumbar interbody fusion: A case series on the development and preliminary evaluation of an innovative minimally invasive lumbar spine surgical technique.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery combined with modified unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for the treatment of lumber epidural lipomatosis: Case report and new therapeutic method.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Mid-term efficacy of non-contact orthopedic robot navigation in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designnetwork meta-analysis.
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs).
methodA literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies comparing Endo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF published from September 2017 to September 2022 for the treatment of LDD were retrieved. Data were extracted from preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, estimated intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, etc.
resultThirty-one studies with 3467 patients were included in this study. Network meta-analysis showed that in the comparison of the 3 procedures, Endo-LIF was superior to MIS-TLIF and OTLIF in terms of reducing EBL, LOS, time to ambulation, and VAS score of back pain. MIS-TLIF was superior to Endo-LIF in terms of ODI improvement, and OTLIF required the shortest intraoperative fluoroscopy time. There was no significant difference in operative time, complication rate, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, or JOA score among the 3 procedures.
conclusionEndo-LIF, MIS-TLIF and OTLIF each have their own advantages and disadvantages and show similar results in many respects, except for better early outcomes achieved with the more minimally invasive procedure.
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.