Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of different treatments for lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Cage design-centric glider approach to full-endoscopic lumbar fusion: optimizing nerve root protection in facet-sparing and facet-resecting techniques.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Imaging-Based Quantitative Assessment of Cage Migration After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Article
- Early-stage lumbar paraspinal muscle injury: endoscopic versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective comparative analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Comparative Study between Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Approach Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TF-LIF) Using PETLIF System and Minimally Invasive TLIF for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disorders.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A Novel Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Utilizing Uniaxial Spinal Endoscope Instead of Arthroscope: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical effect of unilateral biportal minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with spinal degenerative diseases based on intelligent multimodal reconstruction technology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Is minimally invasive surgery a game changer in spinal surgery?Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Comparison of the short-term efficacy of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for the treatment of two-segment lumbar degenerative disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- The efficacy of 3D gait analysis to evaluate surgical (and rehabilitation) outcome after degenerative lumbar surgery.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Hidden Blood Loss and Its Risk Factors for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) are both minimally invasive interbody fusion procedures for lumbar degenerative diseases. In this study, we attempted to compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative outcomes of MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF for lumbar degenerative diseases.
methodsThe study cohort comprised 99 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated by MIS-TLIF or Endo-LIF from January 2019 to July 2021. The clinical outcomes (visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and MacNab criteria) preoperatively, 1 month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively were compared between the two groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in sex, age, disease duration, affected spine segment, and complications (P > 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group (155.25 ± 12.57 vs. 123.14 ± 14.50 min; P < 0.05). However, the Endo-LIF group had a significantly smaller blood loss volume (61.79 ± 10.09 vs. 259.97 ± 14.63 ml) and shorter hospital stay (5.46 ± 1.11 vs. 7.06 ± 1.42 days) than the MIS-TLIF group. In both groups, the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain were significantly lower at each postoperative timepoint than preoperatively (P < 0.05). Although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the ODI and VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain (P > 0.05), the VAS for lower back pain was lower in the Endo-LIF group than the MIS-TLIF group at each postoperative timepoint. The MacNab criteria showed that the improvement rate was 92.2% in the MIS-TLIF group and 91.7% in the Endo-LIF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in short-term surgical outcomes between the MIS-TLIF and Endo-LIF groups. Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the Endo-LIF group incurred less damage to surrounding tissues, experienced less intraoperative blood loss, and had less lower back pain, which is more conducive to recovery.
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.