Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725087›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis.

Yang-Yi Wang, Yu-Hsuan Chung, Chun-Hsien Huang, Ming-Hsien Hu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT07127380 (MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07127380 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

MID-MIS Trail Protocol - Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopernicus Memorial HospitalRan2025 to 2028Enrolled100ConditionsLower Back Pain Chronic, Lumbar Degenerative Disease, Lumbar Disc Degeneration, Degenerative Disc Disease(DDD)ArmsMidline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF), Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yang-Yi WangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, No. 542, Sec 1, Chung-Shan Rd., Changhua, 500, Taiwan.
Yu-Hsuan ChungDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, No. 542, Sec 1, Chung-Shan Rd., Changhua, 500, Taiwan.
Chun-Hsien HuangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Bing Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, No.6, Lugong Rd., Lukang Township, Changhua County 505, Changhua, Taiwan. dreamsorachh@gmail.com.
Ming-Hsien HuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Show Chwan Memorial Hospital, No. 542, Sec 1, Chung-Shan Rd., Changhua, 500, Taiwan. Minghsienhu@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to compare surgical outcomes, clinical outcomes, and complications between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) in patients with spondylolisthesis.

methodsThis study retrospectively compared the patients who underwent MIS TLIF (n = 37) or MIDLIF (n = 50) for spinal spondylolisthesis. Data of surgical outcomes (postoperative one-year fusion rate and time to bony fusion), clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for spine function), and complications were collected and analyzed.

resultsThere was more 2-level fusion in MIDLIF (46% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.038). The MIS TLIF and MIDLIF groups had similar one-year fusion rate and time to fusion. The MIDLIF group had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 3-months (2.2 vs. 3.1, p = 0.002) and postoperative 1-year (1.1 vs. 2.1, p = < 0.001). ODI was not significantly different. The operation time was shorter in MIDLIF (166.1 min vs. 196.2 min, p = 0.014). The facet joint violation is higher in MIS TLIF (21.6% vs. 2%, p = 0.009). The other complications were not significantly different including rate of implant removal, revision, and adjacent segment disease.

conclusionIn this study, postoperative VAS, operation time, and the rate of facet joint violation were significantly higher in the MIS TLIF group. Comparable outcomes were observed between MIDLIF and MIS TLIF in terms of fusion rate, time to fusion, and postoperative ODI score.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionSpondylolisthesisAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCortical bone trajectoryMidline lumbar fusionMinimally invasive procedureSpondylolisthesisTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID38725087
PMCPMC11080171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.