ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Spinal Fusion Surgery for Spondylolisthesis Treatment.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, there has been a growing utilization of minimally invasive (MI) techniques, which provide the potential advantages of minimizing surgical stress, post-operative pain, and hospitalization duration. Nevertheless, the existing body of literature primarily comprises of studies conducted at a single medical site, which are of low quality and lack a comprehensive analysis of treatment techniques exclusively focused on spondylolisthesis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS) spinal fusion outcomes for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. OS spinal fusion is an interventional option for patients with spinal illness who have not had success with non-surgical treatments. Materials and Methods: This systematic review of the literature regarding MI and OS spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis treatment was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines for article identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Electronic literature search of Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases yielded 1078 articles. These articles were screened against established criteria for inclusion into this study. Results: A total of eight retrospective and four prospective articles with a total of 3354 patients were found. Reported spondylolisthesis grades were I and II only. Overall, MI was associated with lower operative time (mean difference [MD], -6.44 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -45.57-32.71; P = 0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -0.49 days; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.40; P = 0.000). There was no significant difference overall between MIS and OS in terms of functional or pain outcomes. Rates of complications were not significantly different between the MI group and the OS group, though overall 75 and 153 complications were observed in MI group and OS group. Conclusion: Available data indicate that MI spinal fusion is a secure and efficient method for managing Grade I and Grade II spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, whereas prospective trials establish a connection between MI and improved functional outcomes, it is necessary to conduct longer-term and randomized trials to confirm any correlation identified in this study.
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.