ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters of percutaneous endoscopic posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using rammed-earth technique.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Imaging indicators and fusion analysis of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the early clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MPLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).
methodsA total of 37 patients who underwent PE-PLIF and 58 patients who underwent MPLIF from March 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of leg pain and low back pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were evaluated and compared before the operation, 3 days after the operation, 1 week after the operation, 1 month after the operation, 6 months after the operation and at the last follow-up. The modified MacNab's criteria were applied at the last follow-up. The fusion rate and surgical-related complications during follow-up were recorded.
resultsThe average operation time in the PE-PLIF group was highly significant longer than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). The intraoperative blood loss, post-operative hospitalization time, and post-operative bedrest time were significantly less in the PE-PLIF group than those in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). There were highly significant differences in VAS scores of leg pain, VAS scores of low back pain, JOA scores, ODI scores at the last follow-up compared with those before the operation in the two groups (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation and 1 week after the operation, the VAS scores for low back pain and ODI were highly significant less in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). Three days after the operation, the JOA scores were highly significant higher in the PE-PLIF group than that in the MPLIF group (P < 0.01). All patients showed intervertebral fusion at 6 months after the operation. Two patients (5.4%) in the PE-PLIF group experienced complications.
conclusionBoth PE-PLIF and MPLIF surgery were clinically effective and safe for patients with single-segment LDD. PE-PLIF surgery is a promising technique that can be used as an alternative treatment for single-segment LDD.
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.