Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39609526›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Ki-Han You, Jin-Tak Hyun, Sang-Min Park, Min-Seok Kang, Samuel K Cho, Hyun-Jin Park

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Ki-Han You *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jin-Tak Hyun *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Min ParkDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Min-Seok KangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Samuel K ChoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Hyun-Jin ParkDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University College of Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. phjfrog@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has become increasingly popular, and indications have expanded. Among these, biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) has yielded good results. Herein, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of 155 patients treated with BE-TLIF and open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale for the back (VAS-back) and leg (VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions. Radiological parameters and fusion rates were evaluated, and postoperative complications were recorded. In this cohort 68 and 87 patients were treated with BE-TLIF and PLIF, respectively. Both groups showed significant improvements in all clinical parameters compared with baseline, but BE-TLIF exhibited a more significant improvement in VAS-back at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the radiological parameters or fusion rates. BE-TLIF had a significantly longer operation time, whereas PLIF exhibited a significantly higher estimated blood loss and surgical drainage, but no significant differences in postoperative complications. Compared to PLIF, BE-TLIF showed similarly good clinical and radiologic outcomes, with better results in terms of early postoperative outcomes. Thus, BE-TLIF is a viable alternative to PLIF with less back pain at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.

Indexed as

EndoscopyLumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39609526
PMCPMC11604668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.