SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy of Intravenous Analgesia and Various Nerve Blocks for Pain Management in Elderly Patients With Hip Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- 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
- Oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar adjacent segment disease: a retrospective comparative study of clinical and radiographic outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy vs. unilateral biportal endoscopy for far lateral lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal brucellosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus endoscopic foraminoplasty decompression for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes between microscope-assisted tubular unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy for crossover decompression in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.
methodsWe identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.
results① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.
conclusionMeta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.
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.