ArticleHeliyon2025
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery: A finite element analysis of open and minimally invasive approach on L4-L5 segment.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Lumbar Spine Pathologies: A Retrospective Study.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Surgical and non-surgical management of spondylolisthesis: a comprehensive review.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the effect of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approaches in fusing the L4-L5 segment and predicting the potential risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Methods: A computed tomography scan image was processed and the three-dimensional model of the L1-L5 spine was reconstructed. The minimally invasive and Open TLIF finite element models were constructed. The models were analyzed using an axial compressive load (500 N) and physiological movements like flexion, extension, and lateral bending with a combined load and moment (150 N and 10 Nm). The ranges of motion (ROM), stress-strain distributions on the L4-L5 implanted segment and cranial adjacent soft structures were compared with the intact model. Results: A substantially comparable drop in ROM was observed for both models due to implantation. The stress and strain distributions on the implanted segment of both models were nearly identical. The peak strain on the L4-L5 was higher than 0.007 for both models. The maximum stress and strain observed on adjacent segment soft structures, except for the annulus fibrosus of both the implanted models, were substantially higher than the intact structures. Conclusions: The open and MI-TLIF approaches are effective in reducing ROMs. However, the higher stress and strain on the L4-L5 segment indicate the chances of bone failure. The higher stress and strain on the adjacent segment soft structures indicate the potential risk of ASD in both models. However, considering the lower intrusive nature of the MI-TLIF technique, it might be favoured over Open TLIF.
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.