ReviewSpine deformity2026
Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Spine deformity, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is used for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis to reduce access morbidity. However, whether this compromises construct durability versus open surgery (OS) remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether MIS-TLIF preserves fusion and reoperation outcomes while improving perioperative outcomes compared with OS.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 1 December 2025. Adult MIS-TLIF was compared with OS-TLIF. Primary outcomes were fusion, overall complications, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI), adjacent segment disease, and patient-reported outcomes. Random-effects models were used. Risk of bias (ROBINS-I/RoB) and certainty (GRADE) were assessed.
resultsNineteen studies encompassing 2117 patients (MIS 948, OS 1169) were included. Fusion was equivalent (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.74-1.74; P = 0.51; I
conclusionMIS-TLIF achieves comparable fusion and reoperation outcomes while reducing perioperative burden, consistent with task-contingent, tissue-sparing use in appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42477285What 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.