ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy between AUSS-TLIF combined with tianJi ROBOT-assisted PPSF and conventional TLIF in the treatment of Single-Stage lumbar spondylolisthesis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) compared with open TLIF(O-TLIF): A retrospective cohort study for at least 5 years.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Does surgical approach or preoperative deformity better predict outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures? A comparative study of minimally invasive versus open techniques.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DATA
backgroundBecause the traditional open-TLIF approach has several drawbacks, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches for TLIF (MISTLIF) have been developed to speed up recovery after surgery and minimize pressure on the para-spinal muscles, necessitating a cost-utility analysis for comparison in healthcare reforms. OBJECTIVES AND AIM OF THE WORK: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical parameters between mini-open TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. HYPOTHESIS: This study hypothesizes that both minimally invasive and mini-open methods using sublaminar trimming laminoplasty (SLTL) (while preserving midline structures) and interbody cages have comparable mid- and long-term clinical and radiological outcomes.
methodsRetrospective analyses were performed on 120 patients who underwent single-level TLIF procedures with a minimum of two years of follow-up utilizing either the mini-open (n = 60) or MIS (n = 60) technique. Records of the operation's time frame, intraoperative fluoroscopy, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of bed rest, and complications were recorded. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for both groups were utilized to assess improvements in clinical scores, and t tests were employed to statistically compare the outcomes. For comparison, radiological parameters, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence (PI), and localized lordosis at the index level, were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. To assess postoperative interbody fusion, the Bridwell grading system was used.
resultsIn the Mini-open TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 24.91 ± 5.7 months, while in the MIS-TLIF group, the average follow-up time was 25.15 ± 4.2 months. In the MIS-TLIF group, the mean operation and radiological time were longer. However, compared to the Mini-open TLIF group, the MISTLIF group experienced less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. The MIS-TLIF group outperformed the Open-TLIF group in terms of the VAS score for back pain and the ODI at less than 6 months following surgery, and the differences were statistically significant. However, at the final follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in the VAS score for the back between the two groups, but the ODI score was significantly greater in the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups' lumbar lordosis and focal lordosis significantly improved at the index level, with the Mini-open-TLIF group showing more focal lordosis. The interbody fusion rate did not significantly differ between the two groups.
conclusionMIS-TLIF and mini-open-TLIF can be surgically effective in treating single-level degenerative lumbar spine spondylolisthesis.
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.