ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Factors Associated With Reoperation After Minimally Invasive Tubular Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cohort Study of 756 Patients.
Article in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor Regarding "Factors Associated with Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Tubular Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cohort Study of 756 Patients".Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "Factors Associated With Reoperation After Minimally Invasive Tubular Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cohort Study of 756 Patients".Global spine journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignRetrospective Cohort Study using Nested Matched Case-Control Analysis.ObjectivesHigh-volume data to describe the complication profile and factors associated with reoperation after minimally invasive tubular transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) in the short-term (<30 days) and long-term (>30 days).MethodsAll tubular TLIFs (2011-2024) were retrospectively reviewed, performed by eight neurosurgeons at our single centre. Two matched controls per reoperation case were manually selected. Each control had undergone the same primary procedure within six months of the index case, at the same levels and, if possible, by the same surgeon. Variables included demographics, comorbidities, frailty indices, private/public status, workplace injury, preoperative antithrombotics, preoperative laboratory results, the symptomatic indications, surgical factors, and clinical outcomes. Univariate logistic regression identified candidate variables for multivariate analysis.ResultsFrom 756 patients, there was a 6.6% reoperation rate (n=50), with mean follow-up of 1.5 (±1.7) years. Short-term reoperation was predominantly for cage migration and multivariate analysis revealed no independent predictors. Long-term reoperation was mainly for cage migration and was associated with private-funding, WorkCover status, osteoporosis/osteopenia, and previous lumbar surgery. Combined timeframe reoperations were associated with WorkCover status, osteoporosis/osteopenia, diabetes, and previous lumbar surgery.Patients who had reoperations fared worse than their matched controls. Additionally, a worse patient outcome was associated with diabetes, a higher Modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, and previous lumbar surgery.ConclusionThis retrospective case-control series reports our complication profile and factors associated with reoperation and poor patient outcomes after tubular TLIFs. Reoperation was associated with osteoporosis/osteopenia, diabetes, private-funding, WorkCover status, and previous lumbar surgery at another spinal level.
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.