ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Comparison of clinical efficacy of modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with bone cement-reinforced pedicle screws for osteoporosis combined with lumbar degenerative disease.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic factors and the role of pelvic lymph node dissection in oligometastatic prostate cancer: a multicenter exploratory study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Severe abdominal aortic calcification is associated with poor two‑year outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion in osteoporotic patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Updated perspectives on vitamin D deficiency, screening, supplementation and clinical guidance.Cardiovascular diabetology. Endocrinology reports · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with lumbar degenerative disease complicated by osteoporosis who underwent bone cement-augmented pedicle screw placement, with a focus on lumbar radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes.
methodsA retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients with lumbar degenerative disease and osteoporosis who underwent lumbar fusion surgery with bone cement-augmented pedicle screws between January 2021 and June 2023. Based on the surgical procedure received, patients were divided into an M-TLIF group (n = 49) and a PLIF group (n = 44). The comparison encompassed perioperative indicators, radiographic parameters-including the coronal Cobb angle, average surgical segment disc height (ASDH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), Bridwell fusion grade, and Marchi subsidence grade-and clinical efficacy scores, including the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, which were assessed preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 2-year postoperatively.
resultsThe study included 93 patients (M-TLIF: n = 49; PLIF: n = 44). The two groups were comparable in all baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). Regarding perioperative indicators, the M-TLIF group had a significantly longer operative time per segment (185.79 ± 78.46 min vs. 152.92 ± 71.64 min, P = 0.038) but a lower volume of bone cement used per screw (1.86 ± 0.58 ml vs. 2.15 ± 0.62 ml, P = 0.023). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all clinical scores (VAS, ODI, JOA) and radiographic parameters (Cobb, ASDH, LL, SL) at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative values (all P < 0.05). At the 2-year postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores were comparable between groups (P > 0.05). Although the JOA score was statistically higher in the PLIF group (25.73 ± 1.26 vs. 25.12 ± 1.51, P = 0.040), the absolute difference of 0.61 points is clinically negligible. Radiographically, the PLIF group achieved a significantly greater SL angle at follow-up (16.59 ± 8.59° vs. 12.17 ± 8.16°, P = 0.013), while the M-TLIF group showed a significantly superior Bridwell fusion grade (P = 0.020). There was no significant intergroup difference in cage subsidence (P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth M-TLIF and PLIF effectively improved the clinical symptoms and radiographic parameters of these patients, with equivalent clinical efficacy in relieving pain and restoring function. The choice of procedure can be individualized: M-TLIF is preferred when superior interbody fusion is the priority, while PLIF is more suitable for achieving greater segmental lordosis.
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.