ArticleNeurospine2025
Distinct Recovery Patterns After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches Using Mixed-Effects Segmented Regression.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Cost comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: experience from Nigeria and the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhile minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
methodsThis retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
resultsOf 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
conclusionMIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.
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.