ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence for Perioperative Risk Prediction in Anesthesiology: A Bibliometric and Knowledge-Mapping Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Instrument Tracking Reduces Radiation Exposure and Increases Efficiency in Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Physicians in Training Learning Endoscopy: Reduction in Radiation Exposure with Optical Navigation Technology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Complications in Thoracic Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (2013-2024): A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Transfacet transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TF-TLIF) results in greater change in spondylolisthesis and posterior disc height compared to percutaneous TLIF (Perc-TLIF) or minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF): a retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Optimizing Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Exoscopic Technology: A Review of Key Innovations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the role of nursing interventions in enhanced recovery after surgery for minimally invasive spine surgery: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.
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.