ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparative outcomes of midline lumbar fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in osteoporotic L4/5 spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to compare radiological and clinical outcomes between midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) in patients with L4/5 lumbar spinal stenosis and concomitant osteoporosis.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed involving patients with osteoporosis who underwent either MIDLF or MITLIF. Participants were stratified into two groups based on the surgical technique. Primary outcome measures included operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin reduction, time to extubation, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, fusion rate, and radiographic parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), intervertebral disc height (HOD), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
resultsThe MIDLF group comprised 22 patients with a mean follow-up duration of 32.48 months, while the MITLIF group included 21 patients with a mean follow-up of 35.32 months. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements in VAS, JOA, and ODI scores relative to baseline. The MIDLF group exhibited significantly higher JOA scores at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the MITLIF group (p < 0.021), and time to extubation was also significantly shorter (p < 0.001). Although not statistically significant, the MIDLF group exhibited reduced surgical and hospitalization durations. No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of complication or fusion rates. Radiological evaluation indicated significant postoperative improvements in LL, HOD, and SS, along with reductions in PT and PI-LL mismatch; however, no statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical techniques.
conclusionBoth MIDLF and MITLIF are effective in improving sagittal alignment and alleviating symptoms in patients with L4/5 lumbar spinal stenosis and osteoporosis. MITLIF may offer perioperative advantages, including reduced intraoperative blood loss and a shorter extubation times.
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.