ArticleBMC surgery2026
Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and traditional midline open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the clinical efficacy of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus Traditional Midline Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Open-TLIF) for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS).
methodsFrom January 2020 to December 2023, 83 patients with single-level LSS were enrolled at our institution. Among them, 40 underwent MIS-TLIF (MIS-TLIF Group) and 43 received Open-TLIF (Open-TLIF Group). Surgical parameters including operative time, estimated blood loss, time to first ambulation, postoperative hospital stay, and intervertebral height were recorded. Clinical outcomes assessed preoperatively, at 1 month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and final follow-up included: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate clinical efficacy at final follow-up.
resultAll procedures were successfully completed. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time or early complication rates between groups (P > 0.05). However, the MIS-TLIF group demonstrated significantly longer operative durations compared to Open-TLIF (P < 0.05), while the Open-TLIF group exhibited greater estimated blood loss, delayed time to first ambulation, and prolonged postoperative hospitalization versus MIS-TLIF (all P < 0.05). Both groups showed significant reductions in low back pain VAS, leg pain VAS, and ODI scores postoperatively versus preoperative baselines (all P < 0.05). Notably, the MIS-TLIF group achieved lower pain VAS and ODI scores at 1-month, 3-month, and final follow-up timepoints compared to Open-TLIF (all P < 0.05). According to modified MacNab criteria at final follow-up, both groups demonstrated excellent/good clinical outcomes without intergroup statistical significance (P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth MIS-TLIF and Open-TLIF yield favorable clinical outcomes for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). MIS-TLIF offers distinct advantages including reduced surgical trauma and accelerated postoperative recovery, demonstrating benefits in terms of reduced EBL, shorter time to first ambulation, and shorter hospitalization.
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.