ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Comparing trends and outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe utilization patterns of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures and to evaluate indirect healthcare utilization indicators such as revisions, infection, and complication rates for various TLIF techniques. Methods: A retrospective analysis using the Pearldiver database was conducted to identify patients who underwent TLIF between 2010 and 2022. The patient population was stratified into four groups: TLIF with an open approach (TLIF-Open), TLIF with stereotactic navigation (TLIF-NAV), TLIF with the assistance of an operating microscope (TLIF-MI), and TLIF utilizing navigation and operating microscope (TLIF-Combined). Revision, infection, and complication rates were analyzed and compared between each technique with open procedure as the reference procedure using multivariate analysis. Results: Over the past 13 years, TLIF-Open procedures showed a consistent decrease in utilization, while TLIF-NAV, TLIF-MI, and TLIF-Combined approaches remained relatively stable without experiencing the same dramatic increase as the decline in TLIF-Open procedures. Multivariate regression analysis revealed, TLIF-NAV and TLIF-MI procedures were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing revision surgeries within 30 days post-operatively, with TLIF-NAV also being linked to a higher risk of infection within 30 days. The TLIF-MI group had a lower likelihood of acute kidney injury (AKI), while the TLIF-NAV group had a lower likelihood of pneumonia and urinary tract infections (UTI). Conclusion: There has been a noticeable shift in the utilization of TLIF procedures from open to minimally invasive approaches. While stereotactic navigation demonstrates favorable outcomes in terms of complications, surgeons must carefully consider infection risks and revision rates.
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.