ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Clinical efficacy and complications of MIS-TLIF and TLIF in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study.
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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of repeat discectomy alone versus with spinal fusion in recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Radiological characteristics in coronal and sagittal planes and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients with lumbar disc herniation accompanied by sciatic scoliosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Targeting Inflammatory Cell Death: A Strategy for Discogenic Pain Relief.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Comprehensive workflow with optical navigation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- Full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a technical note with 2-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Recent advances and evolving strategies in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- The safety and effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative clinical outcomes of full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion, biportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal treatment modality for upper lumbar disc herniation remains unclear. Herein, we compared the clinical efficacy and application value of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for upper lumbar disc herniation. We aimed to provide new evidence to guide surgical decisions for treating this condition.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 81 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation admitted between January 2017 and July 2018, including 41 and 40 patients who underwent MIS-TLIF and TLIF, respectively. Demographic characteristics, preoperative functional scores, perioperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared. We performed consecutive comparisons of visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the lumbar and leg regions, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (JOA), and MacNab scores at the final follow-up, to assess clinical outcomes 5 years postoperatively.
resultsVAS scores of the back and legs were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF than the TLIF group at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively (P < 0.05). Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative hospitalization time were significantly lower, and the time to return to work/normal life was shorter in the MIS-TLIF than in the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The differences in JOA scores and ODI scores between the two groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years postoperatively were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe early clinical efficacy of MIS-TLIF was superior to that of TLIF, but no differences were found in mid-term clinical efficacy. Further, MIS-TLIF has the advantages of fewer medical injuries, shorter hospitalization times, and faster postoperative functional recovery.
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.