ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare surgical characteristics, complications, and long-term outcomes among open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Open-TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF), and unilateral biportal endoscopic TLIF (UBE-TLIF) for grade I-II degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).
methodsFrom January 2018 to June 2020, 279 patients with DLS who underwent Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, or UBE-TLIF and completed a 5-year follow-up were enrolled. Based on surgical approach, they were divided into three groups (each n = 93). Baseline characteristics and surgical characteristics were collected during hospitalization, and complications were recorded over the 5-year follow-up. Functional outcomes were assessed using Visual Analog Scale for back pain (VAS-B) and leg pain (VAS-L), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, while radiographic outcomes were evaluated based on intervertebral disc height (IDH), slip angle, slip percentage, and fusion rate.
resultsThe Open-TLIF had the shortest operative time and least fluoroscopy frequency, but the highest blood loss and drainage (P < 0.05). The MIS-TLIF required the longest operation time and most fluoroscopy, while the UBE-TLIF resulted in the smallest incision, least blood loss, shortest hospitalization, and lowest drainage (P < 0.05). Throughout the 5-year follow-up, the MIS-TLIF group showed significantly higher VAS-L and ODI scores, and lower JOA scores at 3 and 5 years compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). A similar trend was observed in radiographic outcomes such as IDH, slip angle, and slip percentage, with significant differences emerging at 3 years and further increasing at 5 years (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in total complication rates or fusion rates among the groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionWhile short-term outcomes are similar across techniques, mid- to long-term results favor both Open- and UBE-TLIF. Given its minimally invasive advantages and faster recovery, UBE-TLIF is a preferable alternative for grade I-II DLS.
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.