ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Double-Cage Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Two-Year Radiological Fusion Outcomes Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped Interbody Cages.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Biportal endoscopic versus conventional open spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Totally endoscopic trans‑superior articular process lumbar interbody fusion: A case series on the development and preliminary evaluation of an innovative minimally invasive lumbar spine surgical technique.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar instability and analysis of prognostic factors.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.