ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Less Is More: Evaluating the Benefits of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CX3CL1/CX3CR1 signaling in spinal metastasis: mechanisms and translational opportunities.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2026Review
- Expanded Indications for Hybrid Spinal Fixation Systems; Combined Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation and Open Approaches.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery: Innovations and Future Directions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- TEAD4 and RXRA Regulate the Function of Nucleus Pulposus Cells in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Via the TNF-α/NF-κB Pathway: An Integrated Analysis of Single-Cell RNA-Seq, Bulk RNA-Seq, and In Vitro Validation.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to explore the evolution, techniques, and outcomes of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) within the field of neurosurgery. We sought to address the increasing burden of spine degeneration in a rapidly aging population and the need for optimizing surgical management. This review explores various techniques in MISS, drawing upon evidence from retrospective studies, case series, systematic reviews, and technological advancements in neurosurgical spine treatment. Various approaches, including endonasal cervical, transoral cervical, transcervical, mini-open/percutaneous, tubular, and endoscopic techniques, provide alternatives for current approaches to a range of spinal pathologies. The main findings of this review highlight potential advantages of MISS over traditional open surgery, including reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, and improved patient outcomes. Our research underscores the importance of adopting MISS techniques to optimize patient care in neurosurgical spine treatment.
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.