ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Perioperative safety and alignment outcomes in minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common procedure for degenerative lumbar disorders. Minimally invasive (MI) techniques were introduced to reduce perioperative morbidity versus open procedures. Here, we compared the perioperative characteristics, radiographic outcomes, and long-term complications for 1-level MI versus open TLIF. Methods: Retrospectively, 62 adults underwent single-level open versus MI TLIF at a tertiary academic (2021- 2024). Clinical, radiographic, and outcome data were collected, along with the evaluation of other variables: operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, adverse events, adjacent segment disease (ASD), and radiographic correction of lordosis. Results: MI TLIF resulted in shorter hospital stays (length of stay [LOS]) (4.1 vs. 7.7 days), reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (51.5 vs. 185.1 mL), less drain use, but similar fusion and reoperation rates. Open TLIF resulted in more durotomies (18.8% vs. 0%), a higher rate of ASD (50.0% vs. 23.03%), but greater global and segmental lordosis correction. Notably, functional outcome and symptom improvement remained similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing single-level MI TLIF exhibited shorter LOS, reduced EBL, recoveries, and reduced ASD risk, while those undergoing open TLIF exhibited better postoperative global/sagittal alignment correction. Notably, both groups exhibited comparable functional outcomes.
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.