ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Imaging indicators and fusion analysis of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although numerous studies have confirmed percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) as a safe and effective minimally invasive technique for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), existing research primarily focuses on clinical outcomes and involves limited imaging analysis. This study aimed to quantitatively compare PE-PLIF and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MPLIF) through comprehensive radiographic evaluation and clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 75 consecutive LDD patients who underwent surgical treatment at our institution between January 2018 and October 2023. The patients were divided into an observation group (PE-PLIF; 36 cases) and a control group (MPLIF; 39 cases) according to their surgical approach. The intervertebral space height (mm), segmental Cobb angle (°), bone graft area (mm Results: Complete follow-up data showed significant postoperative improvement in both groups (all P<0.001). The PE-PLIF group showed better results, with the intervertebral height increasing from 11.59±2.04 to 14.67±1.62 mm (an improvement of 26.6%), whereas the MPLIF group increased from 10.67±1.25 to 12.64±2.58 mm (an improvement of 18.5%). At the final follow-up, a high recovery rate of 16.1% was maintained (13.53±1.26 Conclusions: PE-PLIF demonstrates superior efficacy over MPLIF in restoring intervertebral height and stability, with advantages including reduced blood loss, better endplate preservation, reliable fusion rates, and faster recovery. These findings suggest that PE-PLIF is a safer, more effective minimally invasive option for LDD treatment, and further validation is warranted.
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.