Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696362›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024

Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.

Abdul Waheed Bahir, Wang Daxing, Xiao Jiayu, Liu Bailian, Gu Shao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Abdul Waheed Bahir *Department of Orthopedic Spine Surgery, Yan'an Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, 245, East of Renmin Road, 650051, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China.
Wang DaxingDepartment of Orthopedic Spine Surgery, Yan'an Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, 245, East of Renmin Road, 650051, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China.
Xiao JiayuDepartment of Orthopedic Spine Surgery, Yan'an Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, 245, East of Renmin Road, 650051, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China.
Liu BailianDepartment of Orthopedic Spine Surgery, Yan'an Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, 245, East of Renmin Road, 650051, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China.
Gu ShaoDepartment of Orthopedic Spine Surgery, Yan'an Hospital Affiliated to Kunming Medical University, 245, East of Renmin Road, 650051, Kunming, Yunnan, P.R. China. 18788144001@126.com.

Funding

Kunming Thousand Project 2020-SW-025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common condition resulting in substantial lower back pain and disability. Surgical intervention is recommended only when conservative treatment fails. This study compared UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF regarding clinical outcomes and fusion rates in patients with single-segment DLS with LSS.

methodsA total of 85 patients who underwent either UBE-TLIF (n = 40) or MIS-TLIF (n = 45) were examined retrospectively. Clinical results were evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional outcomes. Radiographs and CT were utilized to assess radiological outcomes such as disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), and interbody fusion rates. The two groups were also compared in terms of perioperative data (operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, and fluoroscopy exposure).

resultsBoth surgical techniques showed similar statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores. Fusion rates at 2 years postoperatively were identical, including 95% for the UBE-TLIF group and 97.7% for the MIS-TLIF group. However, compared with MIS-TLIF, the operative time and fluoroscopy exposure were longer for UBE-TLIF, but intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay were reduced.

conclusionsUBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF can successfully treat single-segment DLS in the presence of LSS, achieving similar clinical and radiological outcomes with low complication rates. Although UBE-TLIF has certain advantages regarding perioperative outcomes (less blood loss and shorter hospital stay), MIS-TLIF is associated with shorter operative times and lower fluoroscopy exposure.

Indexed as

EndoscopyLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisSpondylolisthesisAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesisFusion rateLumbar interbody fusion outcomesLumbar spinal stenosisMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)Unilateral bi-portal endoscopy (UBE)

Identifiers

PMID39696362
PMCPMC11657107

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.