ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Modified Freehand Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Disease: 3-Year Multicenter Retrospective Outcomes.
Article in Orthopaedic 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study introduces a modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) technique to address the limitations of conventional MIS-TLIF, including soft tissue injury, excessive reliance on intraoperative fluoroscopy, and a steep learning curve. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of this modified approach in the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spine disease, with the aim of elucidating its advantages over the traditional technique and summarizing key technical considerations.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 286 patients who underwent surgery between January 2018 and July 2021 for single-level degenerative lumbar disease. Patients were divided into modified MIS-TLIF (n = 131) and traditional MIS-TLIF (n = 155) groups. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Surgical parameters included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, hospital stay, and complication rates. Radiographic assessments used CT and dynamic lateral X-rays to evaluate interbody fusion, while MRI was used to measure the fatty infiltration ratio of the multifidus (MF-FI Ratio). Continuous variables were compared between groups using independent-samples t tests, whereas categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when expected cell counts were < 5. Paired t tests were employed to compare preoperative and postoperative measurements within each group. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsBaseline characteristics showed no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Postoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA scores improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). All cases achieved successful fusion at the final follow-up. Compared to the traditional group, the modified MIS-TLIF group had shorter operation time (101.83 ± 26.23 vs. 117.81 ± 27.87 min), less blood loss (111.83 ± 26.22 vs. 147.68 ± 28.19 mL), shorter fluoroscopy time (12.35 ± 1.72 vs. 50.33 ± 6.36 s), fewer complications (5/131 vs. 16/155), and a lower MF-FI ratio (36.67% ± 4.52% vs. 39.61% ± 4.58%).
conclusionThe modified MIS-TLIF technique better preserves paravertebral muscles, reduces radiation exposure, shortens operative time, and lowers complication rates, offering a more optimized treatment option for managing single-segment lumbar degeneration.
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.