ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparative study on the technique and efficacy of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF in lumbar revision surgery.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Current Trends and Future Directions in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Review of Emerging Techniques and Evolving Management Paradigms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Polymeric Dural Biomaterials in Spinal Surgery: A Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Advanced Visualization in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Ergonomics, Economics, and Evolution of Camera-Based Tubes and Retractors.International journal of spine surgery · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLumbar revision surgery can be performed by simple lumbar nerve decompression or lumbar interbody fusion, including percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), etc. However, lumbar revision surgery is very difficult in surgical operation. We sought to explore the technique safety and efficacy of microscope-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in lumbar revision surgery.
methodsCases of postoperative recurrence following lumbar spine surgery (n = 63) treated from December 2016 to July 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 24 cases of microscope-assisted MI-TLIF (microscopic group) and 39 cases of naked-eye MI-TLIF (naked-eye group). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, postoperative drainage, length of hospital stay, initial operation, and visual analog score (VAS) of low back and leg pain before and at 7 days and 3 months after the operation and the last follow-up were compared between the two groups. The Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores before and after the operation and the Bridwell interbody fusion grades at 1 year were compared. The independent t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Chi-square tests were used for analysis.
resultsAll 63 patients were successfully treated by operation and were followed up for an average of 31.5 ± 8.6 months (range 12-48 months). The two groups had no significant difference in sex, age, incision length, initial operation, or operative segment (P > 0.05). There was no significance in operation time, VAS score, ODI score, and JOA score of low back pain or Bridwell interbody fusion grade between the two groups (P > 0.05). Significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and the lengths of hospital stay were observed between the two groups (P < 0.05). Cerebrospinal fluid leakage (n = 2), edema of nerve roots (n = 2), and incision infection (n = 1) were observed in the naked-eye group. There were no complications in the microscopic group, such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage, edema of nerve roots, and incision infection.
conclusionAlthough microscope-assisted MI-TLIF and naked-eye MI-TLIF are both effective during lumbar revision surgery, microscope-assisted MI-TLIF brings less trauma, less bleeding, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery. Unlike traditional surgery, microscope-assisted MI-TLIF provides a clear visual field, adequate hemostasis, and nerve decompression.
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.