Skip to main navigation Skip to main content
  • E-Submission
  • Contact us

NS : Neurospine

OPEN ACCESS
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Page Path

15
results for

"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion"

Article category

Publication year

Keywords

Authors

Funded articles

"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion"

Original Articles

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Distinct Recovery Patterns After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches Using Mixed-Effects Segmented Regression
Neurospine. 2025;22(1):3-13.   Published online March 31, 2025
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Distinct Recovery Patterns After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches Using Mixed-Effects Segmented Regression
Neurospine. 2025;22(1):3-13.   Published online March 31, 2025
Close
Objective
While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
Methods
This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
Results
Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion
    Cong Zhang, Chengming Li, Xiaotao Wu, Xiaozhi Sun
    Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1.     CrossRef
  • Biomaterials and Noncoding RNA: The “Repair‐Alliance” Perspective in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration
    Chen Liu, Zhengguang Li, Yongbo Zhang, Tianyi Ji, Hua Sun, Gen Wei, Liang Zhang, Juqun Xi
    Advanced Healthcare Materials.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Modified Integrated Health State Suggests Lower Cumulative Neck Pain–Related Disability After Cervical Disk Replacement Compared With Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion
    Tomoyuki Asada, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Eric R. Zhao, Adrian T. H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Austin C. Kaidi, Kasra Araghi, Vishaal Nayagam, Roger Freeman, Olivia C. Tuma, Tarek Harhash, Harvinder S. Sandhu, Todd J. Albert, Han Jo Kim, James C. Farmer,
    Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee
    European Spine Journal.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 7,184 View
  • 209 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref

Regular Issue

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Comparing Outcomes of Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Neurospine. 2024;21(1):261-272.   Published online January 31, 2024
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Comparing Outcomes of Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Neurospine. 2024;21(1):261-272.   Published online January 31, 2024
Close
Objective
This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.
Methods
A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.
Results
The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.
Conclusion
Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Cage design-centric glider approach to full-endoscopic lumbar fusion: optimizing nerve root protection in facet-sparing and facet-resecting techniques
    Yu-Chia Hsu, Hao-Chun Chuang, Yuan-Fu Liu, Chao-Jui Chang, Yu-Meng Hsiao, Yi-Hung Huang, Keng-Chang Liu, Chien-Min Chen, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Cheng-Li Lin
    Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(2): 343.     CrossRef
  • Recovery outcomes for military personnel undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis induced by physical overload: a retrospective study
    Vasyl Melenko, Lyudmila Kravchuk, Dmytro Nozdrenko, Andriy Maznychenko, Tetiana Abramovych, Inna Sokolowska, Iakіv Fishchenko
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Jaden Wise, Isabella Merem, Dahlia Wrubluski, Xuanzong Zhang, Ridge Weston, Min Shi, Maohua Lin, Frank D. Vrionis
    Bioengineering.2026; 13(3): 262.     CrossRef
  • IMPACT OF INTERBODY CAGE GEOMETRY ON OUTCOMES OF MICRODISCECTOMY WITH INTERBODY FUSION
    Yevgenii Slynko, Roman Chamata, Olexander Potapov
    Eastern Ukrainian Medical Journal.2026; 14(1): 268.     CrossRef
  • 3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF
    Connor C. Jacob, Ryan Eaton, Jacob Ward, Katelyn Sette, Seth Wilson, Matthieu D. Weber, Olivia Duru, Alexander Keister, Markus E. Harrigan, Andrew J. Grossbach, Stephanus Viljoen
    Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 249: 108731.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of Sagittal Plane Correction With “Bullet” Versus “Banana” Type Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices
    Zach Pennington, Abdelrahman Hamouda, Michael Martini, Rahul Kumar, Anthony L. Mikula, Maria Astudillo Potes, Mohamad Bydon, Michelle J. Clarke, William E. Krauss, Ahmad N. Nassr, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, Jeremy L. Fogelson, Benjamin D. Elde
    Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(5): 624.     CrossRef
  • Expandable cage technology in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: where are we and what does the future hold?
    Chibuikem A. Ikwuegbuenyi, Noah Willett, Evan Wang, Sean Inzerillo, Ibrahim Hussain
    Expert Review of Medical Devices.2025; 22(4): 349.     CrossRef
  • ‘Rebound Phenomenon’ – a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients
    Jvahar Jill, Sathish Muthu, Guna Pratheep Kalanchiam, Nalli Ramanathan Uvaraj
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59(12): 2126.     CrossRef
  • Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) with Expandable Banana-Shaped Interbody Spacers—Institutional 5-Year Experience
    Martin N. Stienen, Lorenzo Bertulli, Gregor Fischer, Linda Bättig, Yesim Yildiz, Laurin Feuerstein, Francis Kissling, Thomas Schöfl, Felix C. Stengel, Daniele Gianoli, Stefan Motov, Ethan Schonfeld, Anand Veeravagu, Benjamin Martens, Nader Hejrati
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(15): 5402.     CrossRef
  • Segmental lordosis in lumbar stabilization in patients with degenerative pathology: a non-systematic literature review
    O. N. Leonova, N. S. Kuzmin, E. S. Baykov, A. V. Krutko
    Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika).2025; 22(3): 67.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with and without platelet-rich plasma injections for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis
    Liangjie Lu, Keyi Xiao, Li-Ru He, Rui-Song Chen, Teng-Hui Zeng, Guang-Xun Lin
    Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(5): 728.     CrossRef
  • Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants
    Jacob Mazza, Manhal Siddiqi, John Paul G. Kolcun, Dominick Richards, Richard G. Fessler
    Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 891.     CrossRef
  • 7,365 View
  • 199 Download
  • 15 Web of Science
  • 12 Crossref

Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery SMISS-Neurospine Special Issue

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):544-554.   Published online September 30, 2022
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):544-554.   Published online September 30, 2022
Close
Objective
This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery.
Methods
We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS).
Results
Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia.
Conclusion
Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Global research landscape and citation dynamics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential articles
    Badr Hafiz, Thamer Alsharif, Faisal Sukkar, Moaath Alghamdi, Ali Zaki Alhabib, Shuruq Obaid Alshammari, Saleh Baeesa
    Brain and Spine.2026; 6: 106043.     CrossRef
  • Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent spinal stenosis after posterior lumbar fusion
    Feifei Chen, Xin Nie, Yanjun Ren, Yubin Qi
    Asian Journal of Surgery.2025; 48(6): 4008.     CrossRef
  • Anterior to psoas fusion: Radiological parameters and associated clinical outcomes
    Andrew James Berg, Joseph Maalouly, Liam D. Rose, Prashanth J. Rao, Shay Menachem
    Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; 37(1): 101167.     CrossRef
  • Three Cases of Indirect Decompression Failure Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Requiring Early Direct Posterior Decompression: Analysis of Etiologies and Literature Review
    Satoshi Hattori, Satoru Matsutani
    Cureus.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Oral Eupolyphaga sinensis extract promotes lumbar interbody fusion by enhancing vascularization of cartilage endplate
    Ruixin Zhen, Jiaqi Li, Shaorong Li, Han Wu, Wei Zhang
    Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Can Wallis topping-off surgery reduce radiographic adjacent segment degeneration? a single-center study with at least 8 years of long-term follow-up
    Sixue Chen, Yang Xiong, Ziye Qiu, Ningning Feng, Guozheng Jiang, Junji Yang, Xing Yu
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study
    Yanxiao Liu, Hua Wang, Lei Li
    Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Revision Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Following Previous Central Decompression: A Case Series
    Seung-Yeon Jeong, Hyun-Jin Park, Jin-Ho Park, Gab-Lae Kim
    Journal of Advanced Spine Surgery.2025; 15(2): 84.     CrossRef
  • Improved intervertebral fusion in LLIF rabbit model with a novel titanium cage
    Jiaqi Li, Bingyi Zhao, Weijian Wang, Yafei Xu, Haoyu Wu, Wei Zhang
    The Spine Journal.2024; 24(6): 1109.     CrossRef
  • Screening patients requiring secondary lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a nationwide sample cohort study
    Hangeul Park, Juhee Lee, Yunhee Choi, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sum Kim, Young-Rak Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Kyoung-Tae Kim, John M. Rhee, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients
    Worawat Limthongkul, Chayapong Thanapura, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Pakawas Praisarnti, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Weerasak Singhatanadgige
    Neurospine.2024; 21(1): 342.     CrossRef
  • Trends in degenerative lumbar spinal surgery during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Republic of Korea: A national study utilizing the national health insurance database
    Woon Tak Yuh, Jinhee Kim, Mi-Sook Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Young Rak Kim, Sum Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Kyoung-Tae Kim, John M. Rhee, Young San Ko, Chi Heon Kim, Kentaro Yamada
    PLOS ONE.2024; 19(6): e0305128.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy and safety of navigation robot-assisted versus conventional oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion with internal fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A retrospective study
    Min Tong, Siping Zhang, Wenhao Zhang, Limin Mou, Zhenyu Dong, Rong Wang, Shida Li, Yifei Huang
    Medicine.2024; 103(32): e39261.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol
    Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Commentary on “Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion”
    Alexander E. Ropper
    Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 564.     CrossRef
  • Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion
    Su Hun Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Sung Hyun Bae, Jun Seok Lee, Young Ha Kim, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee, Geun Sung Song
    Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 553.     CrossRef
  • Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis
    Wencan Ke, Teng Zhang, Bingjin Wang, Wenbin Hua, Kun Wang, Jason Pui Yin Cheung, Cao Yang
    Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(10): 2701.     CrossRef
  • Letter to the Editor : Classifying the Anatomical Location of the Ureter after Retroperitoneal Dissection
    Su-Hun Lee, Dong-Wuk Son, Jun-Seok Lee, Geun-Sung Song
    Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2023; 66(5): 605.     CrossRef
  • Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screw fixation: Comparison between conventional double position versus navigation-assisted single lateral position
    Junghoon Han, Chang-Min Ha, Woon Tak Yuh, Young San Ko, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Shin Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sungjoon Lee, Sun-Ho Lee, Asfandyar Khan, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim, Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis
    PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291114.     CrossRef
  • The Influence of Spondylolisthesis Reduction on the Adjacent Lumbar Segment
    Tae-Hwan Park, Yunhee Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sum Kim, Young Rak Kim, Yong San Ko, Woon Tak Yuh, John M. Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim
    The Nerve.2023; 9(2): 91.     CrossRef
  • An Expanded Surgical Corridor of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4–5: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study
    Worawat Limthongkul, Pakawas Praisarnti, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Natavut Prasertkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1450.     CrossRef
  • Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study
    Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205.     CrossRef
  • 7,959 View
  • 270 Download
  • 19 Web of Science
  • 22 Crossref

Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery SMISS-Neurospine Special Issue

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):524-532.   Published online September 30, 2022
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):524-532.   Published online September 30, 2022
Close
Objective
Three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium implants have been developed recently, but the utility is not yet proven. The aim of this study was to compare 3D-printed titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
Methods
Between October 2018 and September 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 83 patients who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF (3D-printed titanium, 40; PEEK, 43). Radiologic parameters were assessed with x-ray and computed tomography (CT) at postoperative 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year. Clinical status was evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale score, and Bridwell fusion grading was assessed on 6-month and 1-year postoperative CT.
Results
There were no differences between the 2 groups in demographics and clinical outcomes. At 1-year of follow-up, the reported 3D-printed titanium fusion grades were grade I: 77.5% (31 patients), grade II: 17.5% (7 patients), and grade III: 5% (2 patients). The PEEK fusion grades were grade I: 51.2% (22 patients), grade II: 41.9% (18 patients), and grade III: 7.0% (3 patients). For overall fusion rate (grade I + II), there was no difference between the 2 cages (95.0% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.705), but grade I was reported at a higher incidence in 3D-printed titanium than PEEK (77.5% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.013). There was no difference between cages based on subsidence and complications.
Conclusion
There were no significant differences in the overall fusion rate for MIS-TLIF surgery between 3D-printed titanium and PEEK, but the fusion grade was better in 3D-printed titanium than in PEEK. Long-term follow-up is required to verify the effectiveness.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Do Three-Dimensional Printed Porous Titanium Relative to Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages Reduce Complications and Revisions after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
    Hannah A. Levy, Abdelrahman M. Hamouda, Christopher A. Magera, Jayanth Kumar, Cassandra Willson, Brian C. Goh, James T. Bernatz, Benjamin D. Elder, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian
    Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 185.     CrossRef
  • Lumbar Fusion With Micro- & Nano-Textured, 3D Printed Porous Titanium Versus PEEK Interbody Cages in TLIF: A Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
    Joshua H. Weinberg, Nathan Ritchey, Witty Kwok, Shravani Khisti, Bryan Ladd, Stephanus Viljoen, Siri S. Khalsa, David S. Xu, Andrew J. Grossbach
    Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 434.     CrossRef
  • Evaluation of the porosity and structural stability of 3D-printed porous titanium pedicle screws using finite element analysis
    Kwang Hyeon Kim, Junsu Bae, Kyeong-Joo Yoo, Seonghoon Jeong, Byung-Jou Lee
    Biomedical Engineering Letters.2026; 16(1): 55.     CrossRef
  • Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations
    Sahil Garg, Patrick Young, Christopher Franquemont, Rachel Conley, Sanjitpal Gill
    Journal of Functional Biomaterials.2026; 17(3): 143.     CrossRef
  • Optimal cage biomaterials for fusion and subsidence outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: a network meta-analysis of 4881 patients
    Gilberto Perez Rodriguez Garcia, James Kelbert, Dana Saleh, Annemarie Pico, Nikhil Dholaria, Giovanni Barbagli, Zachary Wetsel, Salma Bakr, Tyler Krall, Vick Sahni, Amna Hussein, Joseph Georges, Sananthan Sivakanthan, Michael Prim, Ali A. Baaj
    European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Titanium-coated PEEK versus 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis
    Youngmin Yu, Thomas Cho, Jiayong Liu
    Journal of Orthopaedics.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Mechanical optimization of 3D-printed PEEK spinal fusion cages: An integrated experimental–computational framework
    Gabriela Talpeanu, David Putzer, Ran Wang, Fatemeh Shahriyari, Michael Nogler, Timothy O.’Brian, Firas Awaja
    Materials Today Communications.2026; 54: 115512.     CrossRef
  • Trabecular Bone Remodeling after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of the Osseointegration in Three-Dimensional Porous Titanium Cages and Polyether-Ether-Ketone Cages
    Naoki Segi, Hiroaki Nakashima, Sadayuki Ito, Jun Ouchida, Ryotaro Oishi, Ippei Yamauchi, Yuichi Miyairi, Yoshinori Morita, Tomohiro Matsumoto, Shunsuke Kanbara, Keigo Ito, Shiro Imagama
    Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(1): 66.     CrossRef
  • A comprehensive review on the State of the Art in the research and development of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) biomaterial-based implants
    Prabaha Sikder
    Acta Biomaterialia.2025; 191: 29.     CrossRef
  • Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine
    Katherine Corso, Andreas Teferra, Annalisa Michielli, Kristin Corrado, Amy Marcini, Mark Lotito, Caroline Smith, Michelle Costa, Jill Ruppenkamp, Anna Wallace
    Medical Devices: Evidence and Research.2025; Volume 18: 37.     CrossRef
  • 3D Printed Titanium Scaffolds with Bi‐Directional Gradient QK‐Functionalized Surface
    Xiaoyun Sun, Ru Zhong, Congcong Wu, Silin Ye, Haipeng Yuan, Zhou Fang, Junjian Chen, Delin Cheng, Lijing Hao, Lei Chu, Lin Wang
    Advanced Materials.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Haozhong Wang, Hao Zhang, Changming Xiao, Kaiquan Zhang, Lisheng Qi
    Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with titanium cage
    Ehab A.E. Elshal, Amer A. Mostafa, Mohammed A.E.B.A. Elfattah
    Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal.2025; 23(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives
    Iulian Antoniac, Veronica Manescu (Paltanea), Gheorghe Paltanea, Aurora Antoniac, Marco Fosca, Dan Laptoiu, Julietta V. Rau
    Bioactive Materials.2025; 53: 656.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Analysis Between Single and Double 3-Dimensional Printed Titanium Cages: 1-Year Outcomes After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ji Yeon Kim, Jin Hong Hyun, Su Yong Choi, Dong Chan Lee, Hyeun Sung Kim, Dong Hwa Heo
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(Suppl 2): S225.     CrossRef
  • Current Applications and Future Directions of Technologies Used in Adult Deformity Surgery for Personalized Alignment: A Narrative Review
    Janet Hsu, Taikhoom M. Dahodwala, Noel O. Akioyamen, Evan Mostafa, Rami Z. AbuQubo, Xiuyi Alexander Yang, Priya K. Singh, Daniel C. Berman, Rafael De la Garza Ramos, Yaroslav Gelfand, Saikiran G. Murthy, Jonathan D. Krystal, Ananth S. Eleswarapu, Mitchell
    Journal of Personalized Medicine.2025; 15(10): 480.     CrossRef
  • Expandable Cage in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparative Data with Static Cage from a Single Institution and a Single Surgeon
    Dongkyu Kim, Hyun Jun Jang, Bong Ju Moon, Kyung Hyun Kim, Sung Uk Kuh, Dong Kyu Chin, Keun Su Kim, Jeong Yoon Park
    World Neurosurgery.2025; 202: 124428.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Evaluation of PEEK, 3D-Printed Titanium Mesh and Solid Titanium Implants on HU Distortion and Dose Calculation Accuracy in Radiotherapy
    Sook Yang, Euncheol Choi, Seung Gyu Park, Byungyong Kim, Ye Won Kim, Myeongsoo Kim
    Applied Sciences.2025; 15(20): 11264.     CrossRef
  • Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Julia Kincaid, Richelle J. Kim, Akash Verma, Ryan W. Turlip, David D. Liu, Daksh Chauhan, Mert Marcel Dagli, Richard J. Chung, Hasan S. Ahmad, Yohannes Ghenbot, Ben Gu, Jang Won Yoon
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(21): 7696.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of Lumbar Interbody Fusion with 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Treating Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Yuchen Duan, Dagang Feng, Tong Li, Yiran Wang, Leiming Jiang, Yong Huang
    World Neurosurgery.2024; 183: 144.     CrossRef
  • Expandable Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review
    Soo-Bin Lee, Jonghun Yoon, Sung-Jun Park, Dong-Sik Chae
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(10): 2889.     CrossRef
  • A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Sutipat Pairojboriboon, Supranee Niruthisard, Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong, Chalinee Monsereenusorn, Siwaporn Poopan, Sheng-Fu Larry Lo
    World Neurosurgery: X.2024; 23: 100392.     CrossRef
  • Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery
    Justin J. Lee, Freddy P. Jacome, David M. Hiltzik, Manasa S. Pagadala, Wellington K. Hsu
    Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.2024; 18(12): 635.     CrossRef
  • Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ki-Han You, Samuel K. Cho, Jae-Yeun Hwang, Sun-Ho Cha, Min-Seok Kang, Sang-Min Park, Hyun-Jin Park
    Neurospine.2024; 21(3): 973.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol
    Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Concentration-Dependent Efficacy of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 Using a HA/β-TCP Hydrogel Carrier in a Mini-Pig Vertebral Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Model
    Hye-Yeong Lee, Ji-In Kang, Hye-Lan Lee, Gwang-Yong Hwang, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(1): 892.     CrossRef
  • Anterior and Posterior Approaches for 4-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Low-Profile Cage Versus Cervical Pedicle Screws Fixation
    Peng Zou, Rui Zhang, Jun-Song Yang, Er-Liang Li, Qian Zhang, Yuan-Ting Zhao
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(2): 564.     CrossRef
  • Spinal Canal Remodeling and Indirect Decompression of Contralateral Foraminal Stenosis After Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Pang Hung Wu, Eugene Tze-Chun Lau, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Giovanni Grasso, Il-Tae Jang
    Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 99.     CrossRef
  • Commentary on “Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies”
    Yanting Liu, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Jin-Sung Kim
    Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 464.     CrossRef
  • Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Long Polyetheretherketone Cage
    Cheol Woong Park, A. Muhammed Anzar, Beom Seok Yoo, Jae Eon Yoon, Jae Hyun Kim, Woo Min Park
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(Suppl 1): S62.     CrossRef
  • Comparison between Three‐Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial
    Zhipeng Deng, Qiang Zou, Lei Wang, Liang Wang, Peng Xiu, Ganjun Feng, Yueming Song, Xi Yang
    Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(11): 2889.     CrossRef
  • Saving Stabilizing Structure Treatment With Bilateral-Contralateral Decompression for Spinal Stenosis in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy
    Dong Hyun Lee, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Jin Sub Hwang, Jun Yong Kim, Yong-Eun Cho, Sang Won Lee, Dong Chan Lee, Bang Sang Han, Sang Yeop Han
    Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 931.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Analysis of Radiologic Outcomes Between Polyetheretherketone and Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Tamima Sultana, Mosharraf Hossain, Je Hoon Jeong, Soobin Im
    World Neurosurgery.2023; 179: e241.     CrossRef
  • The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective
    Phattareeya Pholprajug, Vit Kotheeranurak, Yanting Liu, Jin-Sung Kim
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1224.     CrossRef
  • Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study
    Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205.     CrossRef
  • The Combined Effects of RhBMP-2 and Systemic RANKL Inhibitor in Patients With Bone Density Loss Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Analysis With Propensity Score Matching
    Seungjun Ryu, Seon-Jin Yoon, Chang Kyu Lee, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha, Dong Ah Shin
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1186.     CrossRef
  • 14,197 View
  • 367 Download
  • 34 Web of Science
  • 36 Crossref

Review Article

Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery SMISS-Neurospine Special Issue

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):479-491.   Published online September 30, 2022
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):479-491.   Published online September 30, 2022
Close
The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a popular surgical technique for lumbar arthrodesis, widely considered to hold great efficacy while conferring an impressive safety profile through the minimization of soft tissue damage. This elegant approach to lumbar stabilization is the byproduct of several innovations throughout the past century. In 1934, Mixter and Barr’s paper in the New England Journal of Medicine elucidated the role of disc herniation in spinal instability and radiculopathy, prompting surgeons to explore new approaches and instruments to access the disc space. In 1944, Briggs and Milligan published their novel technique, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), involving continuous removal of vertebral bone chips and replacement of the disc with a round bone peg. The following decades witnessed several PLIF modifications, including the addition of long pedicle screws. In 1982, Harms and Rolinger sought to redefine the posterior corridor by approaching the disc space through the intervertebral foramen, establishing the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In the 1990s, lumbar spine surgery experienced a paradigm shift, with surgeons placing increased emphasis on tissuesparing minimally invasive techniques. Spurred by this revolution, Foley and Lefkowitz published the novel MIS-TLIF technique in 2002. The MIS-TLIF has demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to the TLIF, with an improved safety profile. Here, we present a view into the history of the posterior-approach treatment of the discogenic radiculopathy, culminating in the MIS-TLIF. Additionally, we evaluate the hallmark characteristics, technical variability, and reported outcomes of the modern MIS-TLIF and take a brief look at technologies that may define the future MIS-TLIF.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Comparing the Effect of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia on Postoperative Opioid Use in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Patient Matched Study
    Harshvardhan G. Iyer, Jesus E. Sanchez-Garavito, Jorge Rios-Zermeno, Andrew P. Roberts, Juan P. Navarro Garcia de Llano, Loizos Michaelides, Jimena Gonzalez-Salido, Benjamin F. Gruenbaum, Elird Bojaxhi, Oluwaseun O. Akinduro, Ian A. Buchanan, Kingsley O.
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(2): 781.     CrossRef
  • Uniportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for elderly patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective comparative study of reduced surgical trauma and accelerated early
    Juanming Lan, Bin Cao, Yongpeng Lin, Weixiong Hu, Rui Lin, Lulu Li, Bolai Chen
    Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Minimally invasive spine surgery: current advantages, limitations, and future directions
    Weonmin Cho, Soo-Bin Lee, Seong Ho Oh, Young-Seo Park, Kyung-Yil Kang
    Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via bilateral channel for lumbar degenerative disease
    Ji-hui Zhang, Liang Yu, Jing-fei Xu, Jin-ming Han, Xu-yu Liao, Bo Chai, Liu-jun Zhao
    Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparing the efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: an umbrella review and meta‑analysis
    Mohammadreza Bozorgmanesh, Khalil Komlakh, Samaneh Asgari, Mohammad Reza Ramezanpour, Sina Javidmehr
    Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal brucellosis
    Cao Rui, Yin Ming
    Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparing trends and outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures: A retrospective analysis
    Hania Shahzad, Maximillian Lee, Frank Epitropoulous, Nazihah Bhatti, Varun K. Singh, Venkat Kavuri, Elizabeth Yu
    Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59: 82.     CrossRef
  • Posterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Arpan A. Patel, Shaarada Srivatsa, Mark A. Davison, Michael P. Steinmetz
    Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2025; 36(1): 11.     CrossRef
  • Synergistic enhancement of spinal fusion in preclinical models using low-dose rhBMP-2 and stromal vascular fraction in an injectable hydrogel composite
    Hye Yeong Lee, Seong Bae An, Sae Yeon Hwang, Gwang Yong Hwang, Hye-Lan Lee, Hyun Jung Park, Joongkyum Shin, Keung Nyun Kim, Sung Won Wee, Sol Lip Yoon, Yoon Ha
    Materials Today Bio.2025; 30: 101379.     CrossRef
  • Modified single-incision MIS-TLIF with expandable tubular assistance for degenerative lumbar spine diseases
    Wenlong Hu, Fei He, Kai Sun, Haiwu Wan, Sijun Ruan, Bo Huang
    Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Where Are We Now?
    Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Arati Patel, Praveen V. Mummaneni
    Neurosurgery.2025; 96(3S): S33.     CrossRef
  • Safety and Utility of Bilateral-contralateral Decompression for Adjacent Segment Stenosis After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy
    Dong Hyun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Dong-Geun Lee
    Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(10): E488.     CrossRef
  • Long term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis in a geriatric (>65 years) population: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Talgat Kerimbayev, Yerzhan Kuanyshbekov, Serik Akshulakov, Indira Karibayeva
    Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Outpatient transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated favorable safety in comparison to the inpatient setting: analysis of 10,595 NSQIP patients and systematic review
    Simon G. Ammanuel, Kaissa Sylla, Cuong P. Luu, Momin M. Mohis, Bradley Schmidt
    World Neurosurgery: X.2025; 27: 100478.     CrossRef
  • Radiation exposure in XLIF surgery utilizing ultra-low radiation imaging with image enhancement software: a randomized controlled trial
    Benno Bullert, Jula Gierse, Eric Mandelka, Paul A. Gruetzner, Sven Y. Vetter
    The Spine Journal.2025; 25(12): 2692.     CrossRef
  • Uniportal endoscopic decompression and debridement for infectious diseases of spine with neurological deficits: a retrospective study in China
    Hui Lv, Jianhong Zhou, Yuan Guo, Sheng Liao, Hui Chen, Fei Luo, Jianzhong Xu, Zhongrong Zhang, Zehua Zhang
    Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): 205.     CrossRef
  • Novel Design of Expandable Spinal Cage for Efficient Lumbar Spine Fusion Operation
    Chanwoo Park, Than Trong Khanh Dat, Sung-Jun Park, Dong-Sik Chae, Sung Hoon Choi, Jonghun Yoon
    Applied Sciences.2025; 15(11): 6323.     CrossRef
  • Optimizing Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note on Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Dual Cage Strategy
    Atmaranjan Dash, Karansinh Raosaheb Parve Patil, Anurag Reddy Kancharla, Bhushan P. Meshram, Rajesh R. Jamoria, Amaresh Cadapa Prahallad, Mandar P. Patil, Vaibhav S. Dhawali
    Journal of Spinal Surgery.2025; 12(2): 37.     CrossRef
  • Tubular Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is it the Most Versatile and Effective Technique? – A General Review in Comparison with Endoscopic Interbody Fusion Techniques
    Umesh Srikantha
    Journal of Spinal Surgery.2025; 12(2): 30.     CrossRef
  • Clinical Insights on Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implantations Following Spinal Fusion Surgery: Enhancing and Monitoring Bone Health in Patients
    Francesco Puglia, Marcello Ferraro, Valentina Longhi, Enrico Gallazzi, Giovanni Andrea La Maida
    Orthopedic Research and Reviews.2025; Volume 17: 281.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Efficacy of Bone Graft Materials in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Sami Al Eissa, Fahad Al Helal, Majed Abaalkhail, Abdullah Al Shehri, Raed Al Mousa, Abdullah Bin Shabib, Hussam Al Angari, Abdulrahman M. AlJahani, Dana W. AlDughiman
    Journal of Spine Practice.2025; 4(3): 88.     CrossRef
  • Oral Eupolyphaga sinensis extract promotes lumbar interbody fusion by enhancing vascularization of cartilage endplate
    Ruixin Zhen, Jiaqi Li, Shaorong Li, Han Wu, Wei Zhang
    Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Improved Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with Double-Cage Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative CT-Based Study
    Yu-Hao Huang, Jwo-Luen Pao
    Diagnostics.2025; 15(20): 2652.     CrossRef
  • Evolution of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Yi-Hsuan Kuo, Chao-Hung Kuo, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Chin-Chu Ko, Chih-Chang Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Wen-Cheng Huang, Jau-Ching Wu
    Spine.2025; 50(19): 1355.     CrossRef
  • Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with unilateral vs. bilateral pedicle screw fixation in iatrogenic spondylolysis: an in-vitro human cadaveric model
    Layla Dawit, Jonathan Day, Theodore Joaquin, Daina Brooks, Zan Naseer, Mesfin Lemma, Bryan Cunningham
    European Spine Journal.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee
    European Spine Journal.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion and modified minimally invasive tubular lumbar fusion for lumbar disc herniation: a two-year retrospective study
    Jialong Qi, Mingxiang Liu, Tao Shan, Zhou Dong, Guosong Han, Zhihao Ni, Ke Zheng, Li Ma, Zhidong Zhang
    Frontiers in Neurology.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (UBE-TLIF) With Dual-Direction Expandable Cages Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5/S1
    Alhareth Maaya, Jin Hwa Eum
    Cureus.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: A finite element analysis
    Yixi Wang, Abulikemu Maimaiti, Yang Xiao, Abudusalamu Tuoheti, Rui Zhang, Muzaipaer Maitusong, Qihao Chen, Paerhati Rexiti
    Heliyon.2024; 10(5): e26294.     CrossRef
  • Pressure Dynamics on Intervertebral Disc Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaver Study
    Yoshiyama Takaki, Shimei Tanida, Koichi Murata, Takayoshi Shimizu, Shuichi Matsuda, Bungo Otsuki
    World Neurosurgery.2024; 185: e1321.     CrossRef
  • Risk factors for extended hospital stay following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Fatima N. Anwar, Andrea M. Roca, Srinath S. Medakkar, Alexandra C. Loya, Ishan Khosla, Kern Singh
    Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 128: 110793.     CrossRef
  • Prognostic value in preoperative Veterans RAND-12 mental Component score on clinical outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Andrea M. Roca, Fatima N. Anwar, James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Srinath S. Medakkar, Alexandra C. Loya, Keith R. MacGregor, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Eileen Zheng, Vincent P. Federico, Gregory D. Lopez, Arash J. Sayari, Kern Singh
    Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 125: 12.     CrossRef
  • Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5‐year Retrospective Study
    Hongtao Li, Changming Xiao, Hongyu Pan, Haomiao Yang, Yang Lei, Haozhong Wang, Sen Li
    Orthopaedic Surgery.2024; 16(8): 1963.     CrossRef
  • Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with or without release of the anterior longitudinal ligament: A single-center, retrospective observational cohort study
    Samantha Högl-Roy, Nader Hejrati, Felix C. Stengel, Stefan Motov, Anand Veeravagu, Benjamin Martens, Martin N. Stienen
    North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2024; 19: 100533.     CrossRef
  • Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis
    Elsayed Mohamed Selim Ali, Mohamed Abdeen, Mohammed Khalid Saleh
    Acta Neurochirurgica.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Successful Arthrodesis Using a Blended Allograft and Autograft Mixture in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Case Series
    Jay Fiechter, Anthony N Baumann, Micah Smith
    Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Commentary: Digital Tubular-Based Camera-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Operative Video
    Ranbir Ahluwalia, Hani Chanbour, Scott L. Zuckerman, Raymond Gardocki
    Operative Neurosurgery.2024; 27(5): 673.     CrossRef
  • Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Double-Cage Technique
    Jwo-Luen Pao
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2024; 9(2): 203.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol
    Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation
    Daodong Chen, Tao Liu, Kunyang Du, Zhenjun Zhu
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • An Injectable Engineered Cartilage Gel Improves Intervertebral Disc Repair in a Rat Nucleotomy Model
    Basanta Bhujel, Soon Shim Yang, Hwal Ran Kim, Sung Bum Kim, Byoung-Hyun Min, Byung Hyune Choi, Inbo Han
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(4): 3146.     CrossRef
  • Spinal Canal Remodeling and Indirect Decompression of Contralateral Foraminal Stenosis After Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Pang Hung Wu, Eugene Tze-Chun Lau, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Giovanni Grasso, Il-Tae Jang
    Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 99.     CrossRef
  • Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes
    Jwo-Luen Pao
    Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 80.     CrossRef
  • Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Jerry E. Robinson, Neel Anand
    Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2023; 34(4): 643.     CrossRef
  • Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis
    Hui Lv, Yu Sheng Yang, Jian Hong Zhou, Yuan Guo, Hui Chen, Fei Luo, Jian Zhong Xu, Zhong Rong Zhang, Ze Hua Zhang
    Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 824.     CrossRef
  • Saving Stabilizing Structure Treatment With Bilateral-Contralateral Decompression for Spinal Stenosis in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy
    Dong Hyun Lee, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Jin Sub Hwang, Jun Yong Kim, Yong-Eun Cho, Sang Won Lee, Dong Chan Lee, Bang Sang Han, Sang Yeop Han
    Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 931.     CrossRef
  • Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screw fixation: Comparison between conventional double position versus navigation-assisted single lateral position
    Junghoon Han, Chang-Min Ha, Woon Tak Yuh, Young San Ko, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Shin Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sungjoon Lee, Sun-Ho Lee, Asfandyar Khan, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim, Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis
    PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291114.     CrossRef
  • The Influence of Spondylolisthesis Reduction on the Adjacent Lumbar Segment
    Tae-Hwan Park, Yunhee Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sum Kim, Young Rak Kim, Yong San Ko, Woon Tak Yuh, John M. Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim
    The Nerve.2023; 9(2): 91.     CrossRef
  • Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study
    Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205.     CrossRef
  • The Combined Effects of RhBMP-2 and Systemic RANKL Inhibitor in Patients With Bone Density Loss Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Analysis With Propensity Score Matching
    Seungjun Ryu, Seon-Jin Yoon, Chang Kyu Lee, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha, Dong Ah Shin
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1186.     CrossRef
  • 13,572 View
  • 446 Download
  • 51 Web of Science
  • 50 Crossref

Original Articles

Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery SMISS-Neurospine Special Issue

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification Does Not Limit Safety or Improvement Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):533-543.   Published online January 2, 2022
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification Does Not Limit Safety or Improvement Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2022;19(3):533-543.   Published online January 2, 2022
Close
Objective
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification has been used to risk stratify surgical candidates. Our study compares outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) procedures based on preoperative ASA physical status classification.
Methods
A surgical registry was reviewed for primary, single-level MIS TLIF patients. Patients were categorized by preoperative ASA physical status classification: ASA I, ASA II, ASA III+. Perioperative complications were compared among groups. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for back pain, leg pain, physical function, and disability were recorded preoperatively and at 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints. PROM improvement from baseline (ΔPROM) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated for each timepoint and compared among groups. MCID achievement was determined as ΔPROMs that surpassed previously established MCID values.
Results
Of the 487 patients, 64 had an ASA classification of I, whereas 336 had an ASA of II, and 87 had an ASA of III or greater. Rates of complications were not associated with ASA classification (all p > 0.050). Neither mean PROM scores nor ΔPROM scores were significantly associated with ASA classification at any timepoint (all p > 0.050). MCID achievement was significantly associated with ASA classification for back pain at 1 year only (p = 0.041). Overall MCID achievement was not significantly associated with ASA classification for any PROM (p > 0.050).
Conclusion
While ASA classification has been commonly used to risk stratify surgical candidates for spinal procedures, patients with an ASA of III or greater may be able to achieve similar long-term outcomes following MIS TLIF given proper selection criteria.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Risk Scale to Guide Prophylactic Paraspinous Flap Closure in High-Risk Spine Surgery
    Allison S. Karwoski, Esther Jung, Kevin Schlidt, Yvonne M. Rasko
    Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Baseline American Society of Anesthesiologists classification predicts worse anxiety and pain interference following Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    John F. Sencaj, Malik A. Siddique, Gregory A. Snigur, Sloane O. Ward, Shriya N. Patel, Kern Singh
    Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2025; 131: 110929.     CrossRef
  • Music therapy combined with anesthesia recovery care boosts anesthesia recovery in colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection
    Yan Zheng, Hai-Fang Ni, Yan Shi, Dan-Qian Cui, Zhen-Zhu Wu, Yu-Feng Ling, Shui-Qing He, Xiao-Yun Qin
    World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • What Are the Risk Factors for Mechanical Failure in Spinal Arthrodesis? An Observational Study
    Vincenzo Peccerillo, Antonio Culcasi, Riccardo Ruisi, Francesca Amaducci, Maria Grazia Benedetti, Marco Girolami, Andrea Evangelista, Mattia Morri
    Surgical Techniques Development.2024; 13(1): 87.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy of polidocanol foam sclerotherapy in treatment of patients with advanced hemorrhoids
    Zhen-Jun Fang, Lin-Xue Wang, Fa Jin
    World Chinese Journal of Digestology.2024; 32(5): 361.     CrossRef
  • Periotome versus piezotome as an aid for atraumatic extraction: a randomized controlled trial
    Mohammed Abdullah Alraqibah, Jingade Krishnojirao Dayashankara Rao, Bader Massad Alharbi
    Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.2022; 48(6): 356.     CrossRef
  • 8,239 View
  • 199 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Versus Bilateral Interbody Cages
Neurospine. 2021;18(4):854-862.   Published online December 31, 2021
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Versus Bilateral Interbody Cages
Neurospine. 2021;18(4):854-862.   Published online December 31, 2021
Close
Objective
To assess the impact of bilateral versus unilateral interbody cages on outcomes for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) procedures.
Methods
A retrospective review for primary, elective, single-level MIS TLIF procedures with bilateral posterior instrumentation from 2008–2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to unilateral or bilateral interbody cage use. Procedures performed without static interbody cages or indicated for trauma, infection, malignancy were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item Short Form health survey physical composite score (SF-12 PCS), PatientReported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF). PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Change in PROs (Δ) was calculated and compared between groups. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using established values from the literature. Achievement rates were compared between groups using logistic regression.
Results
The study included 151 patients, with 111 unilateral and 40 bilateral cage placements. Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, and insurance status differed between groups (p < 0.050). Prevalence of degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis (both p ≤ 0.002), operative level (p = 0.003), and postoperative length of stay (p = 0.022) significantly differed between groups. The unilateral group had lower 1-year arthrodesis rates (p = 0.035). Preoperative VAS leg (p = 0.017) and SF-12 PCS (p = 0.045) were worse for the unilateral group. ΔPROMIS-PF was greater for the bilateral group at 2 years (p = 0.001). Majority of patients achieved an overall MCID for all PROs, except VAS leg (bilateral group).
Conclusion
While preoperative status and postoperative arthrodesis rates differed, patients achieved an MCID at similar rates regardless of use of unilateral or bilateral cages.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Impact of nonunion on patient-related outcomes after single level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A propensity score–matched analysis
    Tatsuya Yamamoto, Momotaro Kawai, Tomohisa Tabata, Yohei Takahashi, Jun Ogawa
    European Spine Journal.2026; 35(4): 1736.     CrossRef
  • Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral cage placement in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Stavros Stamiris, Dimitrios Stamiris, Elissavet Anestiadou, Athanasios Sarridimitriou, Angeliki Cheva, Antonia Loukousia, Vasilleios Vrangalas, Pavlos Christodoulou, Christos Karampalis
    Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(2): 372.     CrossRef
  • Is there a difference in unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy in an open or minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mario Cyriac Tchaya Tcheukado, George Nageeb, Jonathan Hintz, Michael Steinmetz, Mohamed Macki
    Surgical Neurology International.2026; 17: 110.     CrossRef
  • Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes
    Guisi Xie, Yanli Pan, Zhongshu Shan, Chan Wang Lei, Lek Hang Cheang, Jiaming Liang, Junfeng Shen, Wei Zhang, Chengyue Zhu
    Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Letter re: Letter to the Editor Concerning ‘Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Minimally Invasive vs. Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion’
    Sitian Niu, Ranran Li, Jingzhi Wang
    Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1459.     CrossRef
  • Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology After Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Jae-Won Shin, Yung Park, Sang-Ho Kim, Sung-Ryul Choi, Joong-Won Ha, Hak Sun Kim, Kyung-Soo Suk, Sung-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Byung-Ho Lee, Ji-Won Kwon, Hee-Min Choi
    Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1457.     CrossRef
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study
    Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Long-Term Risk of Adjacent-Segment Disease in Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Treated with Posterior Interbody Fusion
    Delia Cannizzaro, Gabriele Capo, Matteo Gionso, Donato Creatura, Mario De Robertis, Carla Daniela Anania, Emanuele Stucchi, Emilia Bellina, Ali Baram, Carlo Brembilla, Massimo Tomei, Alessandro Ortolina, Emanuela Morenghi, Franco Servadei, Federico Pessin
    World Neurosurgery.2025; 196: 123822.     CrossRef
  • Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Implants: Static vs Expandable Cages and Unilateral Versus Bilateral Cages
    Clayton L. Rosinski, Nicole A. D. Watson, Michael E. Kritikos, Kirill V. Nourski, Anthony J. Marincovich, Tyson S. Matern, Prabin Shrestha, Patrick W. Hitchon
    Operative Neurosurgery.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Unilateral Versus Bilateral Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes
    Mohammad Daher, Marven Aoun, Pierre El-Sett, Gaby Kreichati, Khalil Kharrat, Amer Sebaaly
    World Neurosurgery.2024; 186: 158.     CrossRef
  • An evaluation of fusion status following lumbar fusion surgery utilizing multi-planar computed tomography
    Tariq Z. Issa, Yunsoo Lee, Jeremy Heard, Tyler W. Henry, Michael A. McCurdy, Nicholas Siegel, Caroline Zaworksi, Julia Dambly, Jose A. Canseco, Alan S. Hilibrand, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Gregory D. Schroeder, John Mangan, Mark Lambrechts, Christopher K. Kep
    European Spine Journal.2024; 33(9): 3545.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol
    Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Commentary on “Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies”
    Yanting Liu, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Jin-Sung Kim
    Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 464.     CrossRef
  • Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐Up
    Jinping Liu, Rong Xie, Cynthia T. Chin, Priya Rajagopalan, Ping‐Guo Duan, Bo Li, Shane Burch, Sigurd H. Berven, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou
    Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(9): 2334.     CrossRef
  • A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Mark James Lambrechts, Jeremy Heard, Nicholas D’Antonio, John Bodnar, Gregory Schneider, Evan Bloom, Jose Canseco, Barrett Woods, Ian David Kaye, Mark Kurd, Jeffrey Rihn, Alan Hilibrand, Gregory Schroeder, Alexander Vaccaro, Christopher Kepler
    Asian Spine Journal.2023; 17(4): 666.     CrossRef
  • Morphometric Comparison of Interbody Fusion with Cage and Autograft at L4-L5 Levels versus Autograft Alone for Fusion
    Azmi Tufan, Feyza Karagöz Güzey, Abdurrahman Aycan
    Bagcilar Medical Bulletin.2023; 8(3): 293.     CrossRef
  • Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal
    Chengyue Zhu, Liangping Zhang, Hao Pan, Wei Zhang
    Acta Neurochirurgica.2022; 164(9): 2343.     CrossRef
  • Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rui Zhong, Xiali Xue, Runsheng Wang, Jing Dan, Chuanen Wang, Daode Liu
    Frontiers in Neurology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • 9,412 View
  • 148 Download
  • 17 Web of Science
  • 18 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Longitudinal Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for Back and Leg Pain in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2020;17(4):862-870.   Published online December 31, 2020
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Longitudinal Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for Back and Leg Pain in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2020;17(4):862-870.   Published online December 31, 2020
Close
Objective
While visual analogue score (VAS) metrics are among the most universally adopted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), there is limited research on the influence of back and leg pain on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) scores. Here we assess the association of VAS back and VAS leg scores with PROMIS PF in the setting of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). Secondarily, we determine if PROMIS PF is more influenced by back or leg pain.
Methods
A prospective surgical registry was reviewed from May 2015 to November 2018. Inclusion criteria were primary, single-level MIS TLIFs. We excluded multilevel procedures and patients without preoperative PROMs. Pre- and postoperative PROMIS PF, VAS back, and VAS leg scores were recorded at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. A Pearson correlation evaluated PROMIS PF association with VAS back and VAS leg scores. A Fisher z-test compared correlations. Linear regression evaluated PROMIS with VAS back and VAS leg scores.
Results
Our cohort was comprised of 146 subjects. 40.4% were female and the average age of 51 years. VAS back demonstrated a stronger correlation than VAS leg with PROMIS PF at all timepoints. PROMIS PF scores were negatively associated with both VAS back and VAS leg at all timepoints. Fisher z-test revealed VAS back to have a stronger correlation with PROMIS PF (p = 0.025) than VAS leg.
Conclusion
In the setting of MIS TLIF, physical function as evaluated by PROMIS PF, had a stronger correlation with VAS back than VAS leg at 6 months. This suggests that postoperative PROMIS PF scores may be more influenced by back pain than with leg pain.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Clinical and functional outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in single segment lumbar spinal disease: a prospective observational study
    Cheemullu Shivashankar Shreyas, Mahendra Singh Tak, Mahesh Bhati, Lakshit Suthar
    International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.2025; 13(4): 1524.     CrossRef
  • Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index Cannot Reliably Predict Patient Satisfaction After Single and Double Level Lumbar Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Surgery
    Bryon Jun Xiong Teo, Tet Sen Howe, Cheri Chan, Joyce SB. Koh, William Yeo, Yeong Huei Ng
    Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function instruments compare favorably to legacy patient-reported outcome measures in spine patients: a systematic review of the literature
    Alexander Ziedas, Varag Abed, Carter Bench, Tahsin Rahman, Melvin C. Makhni
    The Spine Journal.2022; 22(4): 646.     CrossRef
  • Two-year validation and minimal clinically important difference of the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical Component Score in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Conor P. Lynch, Elliot D. K. Cha, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Kern Singh
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2022; 36(5): 731.     CrossRef
  • Mental Health as a Predictor of Preoperative Expectations for Pain and Disability Following Lumbar Fusion
    Kevin C. Jacob, Madhav R. Patel, Grant J. Park, Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Andrew P. Collins, Nisheka N. Vanjani, Hanna Pawlowski, Michael C. Prabhu, Kern Singh
    World Neurosurgery.2022; 161: e401.     CrossRef
  • Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 10-Year Follow-up Results
    Young-Ho Roh, Jae Chul Lee, Jinyeong Hwang, Hyung-Ki Cho, Jaewan Soh, Sung-Woo Choi, Byung-Joon Shin
    Journal of Korean Medical Science.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Location of Disc Herniation May Affect Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression
    Kevin C. Jacob, Madhav R. Patel, Elliot D.K. Cha, Conor P. Lynch, Shivam Patel, Andrew P. Collins, Hanna Pawlowski, Michael C. Prabhu, Nisheka N. Vanjani, Kern Singh
    Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Versus Bilateral Interbody Cages
    Conor P. Lynch, Elliot D.K. Cha, Augustus J. Rush III, Caroline N. Jadczak, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Kern Singh
    Neurospine.2021; 18(4): 854.     CrossRef
  • 7,841 View
  • 150 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 8 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease
Neurospine. 2021;18(1):98-105.   Published online December 14, 2020
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease
Neurospine. 2021;18(1):98-105.   Published online December 14, 2020
Close
Objective
There have been no clinical studies comparing different robotic techniques. We compare minimally invasive, robot-guided transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RGTLIF) and mini-open robot-guided posterior lumbar interbody fusion (RG-PLIF).
Methods
Using data from a prospective institutional registry, we identified 38 patients who underwent RG-PLIF. Propensity score matching using a nearest-neighbor algorithm was implemented to select RG-TLIF controls. Twelve-month patient-reported outcome measures are presented. A reduction of ≥ 30% from baseline was defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).
Results
Among the 76 included patients, there was no difference between RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF in surgical time (132.3 ± 29.4 minutes vs. 156.5 ± 53.0 minutes, p = 0.162), length of stay (55.9 ± 20.0 hours vs. 57.2 ± 18.8 hours, p = 0.683), and radiation dose area product (310.6 ± 126.1 mGy × cm2 vs. 287.9 ± 90.3 mGy × cm2, p = 0.370). However, while there was no difference among the 2 groups in terms of raw postoperative patient-reported outcome measures scores (all p > 0.05), MCID in leg pain was greater for RG-PLIF (55.3% vs. 78.9%, p = 0.028), and MCID in Oswestry Disability Index was greater for RG-TLIF (92.1% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.009). There was no difference concerning back pain (81.6% vs. 68.4%, p = 0.185).
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that both RG-TLIF and RG-PLIF are viable and equally effective techniques in robotic spine surgery.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Lumbar spinal stenosis: current concept of management
    Ji-Won Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Namhoo Kim, Sub-Ri Park, Jae-Won Shin, Hak-Sun Kim, Byung Ho Lee
    Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(1): 143.     CrossRef
  • Clinical benefits of robotics in neurosurgery: a systematic review of operative time and recovery outcomes
    Jheremy S. Reyes, Cristian S. Cabezas, Luis M. Navarro-Ramirez, David F. Estupiñan-Pepinosa, Sofia Isabella Leal, Raul F. Vega-Alvear, Juan S. Aguirre-Patiño
    Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice
    Jan Vollert, Bethea A. Kleykamp, John T. Farrar, Ian Gilron, David Hohenschurz-Schmidt, Robert D. Kerns, Sean Mackey, John D. Markman, Michael P. McDermott, Andrew S.C. Rice, Dennis C. Turk, Ajay D. Wasan, Robert H. Dworkin
    PAIN Reports.2023; 8(2): e1057.     CrossRef
  • Robotics in Cervical Spine Surgery: Feasibility and Safety of Posterior Screw Placement
    Lu-Ping Zhou, Zhi-Gang Zhang, Dui Li, Shu Fang, Rui Sheng, Ren-Jie Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen
    Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 329.     CrossRef
  • Clinical application of spinal robot in cervical spine surgery: safety and accuracy of posterior pedicle screw placement in comparison with conventional freehand methods
    Lu-Ping Zhou, Ren-Jie Zhang, Wen-Kui Zhang, Liang Kang, Kai-Xuan Li, Hua-Qing Zhang, Chong-Yu Jia, Yin-Shun Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen
    Neurosurgical Review.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic lumbar discectomy following a uniform clinical pathway in the Korean national health insurance system
    Chi Heon Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Seung Heon Yang, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Keewon Kim, Sun Gun Chung, Sathish Muthu
    PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0287092.     CrossRef
  • Commentary on “Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis”
    Zafer Orkun Toktas
    Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 835.     CrossRef
  • Spine Surgical Robotics: Current Status and Recent Clinical Applications
    Jiangtao Wang, Junxian Miao, Yi Zhan, Yongchao Duan, Yuanshun Wang, Dingjun Hao, Biao Wang
    Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1256.     CrossRef
  • Narrative Review of Uniportal, Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy
    Woon Tak Yuh, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim
    International journal of Pain.2022; 13(1): 11.     CrossRef
  • Commentary on “Robot-Guided Transforaminal Versus Robot-Guided Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease”
    Sertac Kirnaz, Branden Medary, Roger Härtl
    Neurospine.2021; 18(1): 106.     CrossRef
  • 7,680 View
  • 193 Download
  • 8 Web of Science
  • 10 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Association of Preoperative PROMIS Scores With Short-term Postoperative Improvements in Physical Function After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2020;17(2):417-425.   Published online June 30, 2020
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Association of Preoperative PROMIS Scores With Short-term Postoperative Improvements in Physical Function After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2020;17(2):417-425.   Published online June 30, 2020
Close
Objective
This study examines the associations between preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) score, measured by PROMIS-PF and the change between pre- and postoperative PROMIS-PF scores.
Methods
A prospectively maintained surgical registry was retrospectively reviewed for spine surgeries between May 2015–June 2019. Inclusion criteria were primary, single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. Revisions, multilevel procedures, and patients missing preoperative surveys were excluded. Patients were grouped by preoperative PROMIS-PF scores of ≥ 35 and < 35, with higher scores indicating greater PF. A chi-squared and Student t-test were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables respectively. Linear regression evaluated the relationship of PROMIS-PF score improvement.
Results
Of the 180 subjects, 84 were in the PROMIS-PF < 35 group which had more obese patients (p < 0.001) and more males (p = 0.001). Length of stay was greater for the PROMIS-PF < 35 group (36.2 hours vs. 28.7 hours, p = 0.014). PROMIS-PF and Oswestry Disability Index scores were significantly different between subgroups at all timepoints. PROMIS-PF < 35 cohort had larger postoperative PROMIS-PF improvements at 6 weeks (p = 0.008) and 12 weeks (p = 0.003). Linear regression demonstrated a negative association between preoperative PROMIS-PF scores and improvement at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years (p < 0.001). PROMIS-PF < 35 demonstrated significantly lower rate of achieving minimum clinically important difference at 6 months, otherwise no difference observed throughout the 2-year follow-up.
Conclusion
Up to 6 months postoperatively, lower preoperative PROMIS-PF scores were associated with larger PROMIS-PF improvements. Understanding the relationship preoperative PROMIS-PF scores have with postoperative improvement may enable better patient counseling.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Impact of Preoperative PROMIS PF on Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Replacement
    Cole T. Kwas, Tejas Subramanian, Joshua Zhang, Eric Mai, Annika Heuer, Chad Z. Simon, Nishtha Singh, Tomoyuki Asada, Kasra Araghi, Olivia C. Tuma, Maximilian K. Korsun, Myles R.J. Allen, Eric T. Kim, Avani S. Vaishnav, Evan D. Sheha, James E. Dowdell, Sh
    Clinical Spine Surgery.2026; 39(3): E161.     CrossRef
  • Predictors of Delayed Clinical Benefit Following Surgical Treatment for Low-grade Spondylolisthesis
    Mladen Djurasovic, Leah Y. Carreon, Erica F. Bisson, Andrew K. Chan, Mohamad Bydon, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John J. Knightly, Paul Park, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, J
    Spine.2025; 50(11): E213.     CrossRef
  • New Patient PROMIS Scores of Patients Presenting with Low Back Pain Predict Time to Elective Spine Surgery
    Justin E. Kung, Chase Gauthier, Yianni Bakaes, Michael Spitnale, Richard A. Bidwell, David G. Edelman, Heidi C. Ventresca, J. Benjamin Jackson, Shari Cui, Gregory Grabowski
    Spine Surgery and Related Research.2025; 9(2): 237.     CrossRef
  • Association Between Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function With Postoperative Pain, Narcotics Consumption, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Lumbar Microdiscectomy
    Patawut Bovonratwet, Avani S. Vaishnav, Jung K. Mok, Hikari Urakawa, Marcel Dupont, Dimitra Melissaridou, Pratyush Shahi, Junho Song, Daniel J. Shinn, Sidhant S. Dalal, Kasra Araghi, Evan D. Sheha, Catherine H. Gang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
    Global Spine Journal.2024; 14(1): 225.     CrossRef
  • Socioeconomic disadvantage is correlated with worse PROMIS outcomes following lumbar fusion
    Hashim J.F. Shaikh, Clarke I. Cady-McCrea, Emmanuel N. Menga, Robert W. Molinari, Addisu Mesfin, Paul T. Rubery, Varun Puvanesarajah
    The Spine Journal.2024; 24(1): 107.     CrossRef
  • Depression State Correlates with Functional Recovery Following Elective Lumbar Spine Fusion
    Clarke I. Cady-McCrea, Hashim J.F. Shaikh, Sandeep Mannava, Jonathan Stone, Hamid Hassanzadeh, Addisu Mesfin, Robert W. Molinari, Emmanuel N. Menga, Paul T. Rubery, Varun Puvanesarajah
    World Neurosurgery.2024; 187: e107.     CrossRef
  • The Influence of Presenting Physical Function on Postoperative Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression
    Kevin C. Jacob, Madhav R. Patel, Grant A. Park, Jessica R. Gheewala, Nisheka N. Vanjani, Hanna Pawlowski, Michael C. Prabhu, Kern Singh
    Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(1): E6.     CrossRef
  • Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery
    Ron Gilat, Ilan Y. Mitchnik, Sumit Patel, Jeremy A. Dubin, Gabriel Agar, Eran Tamir, Dror Lindner, Yiftah Beer
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.2023; 143(11): 6617.     CrossRef
  • Two-year validation and minimal clinically important difference of the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical Component Score in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Conor P. Lynch, Elliot D. K. Cha, Shruthi Mohan, Cara E. Geoghegan, Caroline N. Jadczak, Kern Singh
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2022; 36(5): 731.     CrossRef
  • Impact of Ambulatory Setting for Workers’ Compensation Patients Undergoing One-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Review of the Literature
    James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Hanna Pawlowski, Michael C. Prabhu, Nisheka N. Vanjani, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Kern Singh
    World Neurosurgery.2022; 167: e251.     CrossRef
  • 7,327 View
  • 87 Download
  • 11 Web of Science
  • 10 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Less Opioid Consumption With Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): A Comparison to Standard Minimally-Invasive TLIF
Neurospine. 2020;17(1):228-236.   Published online March 31, 2020
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Less Opioid Consumption With Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): A Comparison to Standard Minimally-Invasive TLIF
Neurospine. 2020;17(1):228-236.   Published online March 31, 2020
Close
Objective
The concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is relatively new to the neurosurgical field. The introduction of an ERAS protocol in lumbar fusion surgery has aimed to accelerate patient recovery from surgery by reducing in-hospital opioid consumption.
Methods
Patients with 1- or 2-level degenerative lumbar spine disease and who underwent ERAS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ general demographic data, in-hospital opioid dosage (converted to morphine equivalents), and hospital stay were compared to those who underwent standard minimally-invasive (MIS)-TLIF.
Results
Twenty-four patients who received ERAS TLIF (the ERAS group) were compared to a series of 24 patients who received standard MIS-TLIF (the MIS group). The demographic data were similar. The operation time and blood loss significantly favored ERAS TLIF. The average daily opioid consumption was remarkably lower in the ERAS group than the MIS group. Average opioid dosage throughout the entire in-hospital period was also significantly reduced in the ERAS group compared to the MIS group. The average length of hospital stay was substantially shorter in the ERAS group (1.4 ± 1.13 days vs. 4.0±1.98 days, p<0.001).
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated a significant decline in the consumption of opioids and in the hospital length of stay for patients undergoing ERAS TLIF for 1- or 2-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Spinal Surgery Sub – Specialities, Interventions and Efficacy
    Caroline Büchel, Caroline Treanor, Benjamin Davies, David B. Anderson, Michael Fehlings, Carl M. Zipser
    Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(3): 1660.     CrossRef
  • CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: MULTIFACTORIAL ASPECTS AFTER LUMBAR OSTEOARTHRITIS - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    FRANCIEL WAWRZYNIAK, LEANDRO MEDEIROS DA COSTA
    Coluna/Columna.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Rationale of 3D Navigation in High-Grade Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Vishal B. Peshattiwar, Shrey S. Binyala, Rajendra Sakhrekar, Shreenidhi Kulkarni, Rahul Chavan, Gaurav Agrawal
    Indian Spine Journal.2026; 9(1): 90.     CrossRef
  • The Impact of Peri-operative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols on Outcomes Following Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery
    Peter S. Tretiakov, Oluwatobi O. Onafowokan, Jamshaid M. Mir, Nathan Lorentz, Matthew Galetta, Ankita Das, John Shin, Daniel Sciubba, Oscar Krol, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Tyler Williamson, Bailey Imbo, Timothy Yee, Pawel P. Jankowski, Aaron Hockley, Andrew J.
    Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(3): 1544.     CrossRef
  • The Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery in High and Low/Middle-income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Abhijit V. Lele, Elizabeth O. Moreton, Jorge Mejia-Mantilla, Samuel N. Blacker
    Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology.2025; 37(3): 242.     CrossRef
  • Spinal Anesthesia for Multilevel Awake Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single-Center Experience
    Juan P. Navarro-Garcia de Llano, Macarena Fuentes-Fernandez Cueto, Andrew P. Roberts, Jesus E. Sanchez-Garavito, Siddharth Shah, Gaetano De Biase, Harshvandan Iyer, Ogechuku Ariwodo, Loizos Michaelides, Jennifer S. Patterson, Kate E. White, Elird Bojaxhi,
    Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 28(6): 855.     CrossRef
  • Application of an enhanced recovery after surgery care protocol in patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a meta-analysis
    Jianghong Luo, Yixin Tang, Jing Cao, Wei Li, Liu Zheng, Haomin Lin
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comparative perioperative narcotic use in tlif patients: Spinal versus general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort study of 180 cases in hospital and ambulatory settings
    Colin Gold, Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Holley Spears, Ernest E. Braxton
    Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 251: 108840.     CrossRef
  • Clinical and functional outcome of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in single segment lumbar spinal disease: a prospective observational study
    Cheemullu Shivashankar Shreyas, Mahendra Singh Tak, Mahesh Bhati, Lakshit Suthar
    International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.2025; 13(4): 1524.     CrossRef
  • Transforming Outcomes of Spine Surgery—Exploring the Power of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of 15 198 Patients
    Hamzah M. Magableh, Sufyan Ibrahim, Zachary Pennington, Karim Rizwan Nathani, Sarah E. Johnson, Konstantinos Katsos, Brett A. Freedman, Mohamad Bydon
    Neurosurgery.2024; 95(1): 3.     CrossRef
  • A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study Comparing 3 Different Spine Pedicle Screw Fixation Methods: Freehand, Fluoroscopy-Guided, and Robot-Assisted Techniques
    Yoon Ha Hwang, Byeong-Jin Ha, Hyung Cheol Kim, Byung Ho Lee, Jeong-Yoon Park, Dong-Kyu Chin, Seong Yi
    Neurospine.2024; 21(1): 83.     CrossRef
  • Opioid Prescription Trends Among Orthopaedic, Primary Care, and Pain Management Providers in Spine Surgery Patients
    Delano Trenchfield, Sebastian Fras, Michael McCurdy, Rajkishen Narayanan, Yunsoo Lee, Tariq Issa, Gregory Toci, Yazan Oghli, Hassan Siddiqui, Michael Vo, Hamd Mahmood, Meghan Schilken, Bahram Pashaee, John Mangan, Mark Kurd, Ian David Kaye, Jose A. Cansec
    Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2024; 32(23): e1252.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol
    Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim
    Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Clinical Outcomes of Liposomal Bupivacaine Erector Spinae Block in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery
    Alper Dincer, Andy Wang, Matthew J. Kanter, Michelle Olmos, Michael Yang, Ron I. Riesenburger, James T. Kryzanski
    Neurosurgery.2023; 92(3): 590.     CrossRef
  • Fast-track protocols for patients undergoing spine surgery: a systematic review
    Deyanira Contartese, Francesca Salamanna, Silvia Brogini, Konstantinos Martikos, Cristiana Griffoni, Alessandro Ricci, Andrea Visani, Milena Fini, Alessandro Gasbarrini
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A standardized anesthetic/analgetic regimen compared to standard anesthetic/analgetic regimen for patients with high-risk factors undergoing open lumbar spine surgery: a prospective comparative single-center study
    Vadim A. Byvaltsev, Victoria Yu. Goloborodko, Andrei A. Kalinin, Valerii V. Shepelev, Yurii Ya. Pestryakov, K. Daniel Riew
    Neurosurgical Review.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Advanced technologies for lumbar spondylolisthesis
    Vignessh Kumar, Michael Y Wang
    Seminars in Spine Surgery.2023; 35(3): 101045.     CrossRef
  • Relationships Between Skeletal Muscle Mass, Lumbar Lordosis, and Chronic Low Back Pain in the Elderly
    Myung Woo Park, Sang Jun Park, Sun Gun Chung
    Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 959.     CrossRef
  • Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study
    Ken Porche, Ronny Samra, Kaitlyn Melnick, Meghan Brennan, Sasha Vaziri, Christoph Seubert, Adam Polifka, Daniel J Hoh, Basma Mohamed
    The Spine Journal.2022; 22(3): 399.     CrossRef
  • Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020
    Richard J. Bodnar
    Peptides.2022; 151: 170752.     CrossRef
  • Perioperative Modifications to the Open TLIF Provide Comparable Short-term Outcomes to the MIS-TLIF
    Richard A. Berkman, Amanda H. Wright, Inamullah Khan, Ahilan Sivaganesan
    Clinical Spine Surgery.2022; 35(1): E202.     CrossRef
  • Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 10-Year Follow-up Results
    Young-Ho Roh, Jae Chul Lee, Jinyeong Hwang, Hyung-Ki Cho, Jaewan Soh, Sung-Woo Choi, Byung-Joon Shin
    Journal of Korean Medical Science.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Surgery Reduces Length of Hospital Stay and Inpatient Narcotic Use
    Isabelle C. Band, Altan O. Yenicay, Tina D. Montemurno, Jenny S. Chan, Alfred T. Ogden
    World Neurosurgery: X.2022; 14: 100120.     CrossRef
  • Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study
    Ken Porche, Sandra Yan, Basma Mohamed, Cynthia Garvan, Ronny Samra, Kaitlyn Melnick, Sasha Vaziri, Christoph Seubert, Matthew Decker, Adam Polifka, Daniel J. Hoh
    The Spine Journal.2022; 22(9): 1513.     CrossRef
  • Intrathecal morphine in combination with bupivacaine as pre-emptive analgesia in posterior lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective cohort study
    R. Trivedi, J. John, A. Ghodke, J. Trivedi, S. Munigangaiah, S. Dheerendra, B. Balain, M. Ockendon, J. Kuiper
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane nerve blocks: a novel application for the management of acute postoperative pain in awake spine surgery. Illustrative case
    Ernest E. Braxton, Kyle R. Brena, Holley Spears, Emerson Conrad, Jared D. Heinze
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Case Lessons.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in spine surgery
    Tungish Bansal, Alok D. Sharan, Bhavuk Garg
    Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma.2022; 31: 101944.     CrossRef
  • Preclinical Study of Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Using a 3-Dimensional Manufacturing Setting for Enhancing Spinal Fusion
    Sumin Cho, Hyemin Choi, Hyundoo Jeong, Su Yeon Kwon, Eun Ji Roh, Kwang-Hun Jeong, Inho Baek, Byoung Ju Kim, Soo-Hong Lee, Inbo Han, Jae Min Cha
    Stem Cells Translational Medicine.2022; 11(10): 1072.     CrossRef
  • Commentary: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Reduces Postoperative Opioid Use and 90-Day Readmission Rates After Open Thoracolumbar Fusion for Adult Degenerative Deformity
    Marco V Corniola, Enrico Tessitore
    Neurosurgery.2021; 88(2): E136.     CrossRef
  • Effectiveness of optimization program of neuroanesthesia in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases in patients with high risk factors
    V.Yu. Goloborodko, A.A. Kalinin, V.A. Byvaltsev
    Anesteziologiya i reanimatologiya.2021; (2): 74.     CrossRef
  • Spine Instrumented Surgery on a Budget—Tools for Lowering Cost Without Changing Outcome
    Ilyas Eli, Robert G. Whitmore, Zoher Ghogawala
    Global Spine Journal.2021; 11(1_suppl): 45S.     CrossRef
  • Enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: Benefits of using Game Ready©
    Anaïs De Bie, Renaud Siboni, Mohamed Faouzi Smati, Xavier Ohl, Simon Bredin
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research.2021; 107(7): 102953.     CrossRef
  • Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Yuanqiao Kou, Jianjun Chang, Xiaoming Guan, Qiang Chang, Haoyu Feng
    World Neurosurgery.2021; 152: e352.     CrossRef
  • Récupération accélérée après chirurgie lombaire : intérêt de la Game Ready©
    Anaïs De Bie, Renaud Siboni, Mohamed Faouzi Smati, Xavier Ohl, Simon Bredin
    Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique.2021; 107(7): 845.     CrossRef
  • A Prospective, Multi-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Synthetic Bone Graft Material DBM Gel with rhBMP-2 versus DBM Gel Used during the TLIF Procedure in Patients with Lumbar Disc Disease
    Seung-Jae Hyun, Seung Hwan Yoon, Joo Han Kim, Jae Keun Oh, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun Jae Shin, Jiin Kang, Yoon Ha
    Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2021; 64(4): 562.     CrossRef
  • Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Christian B. Theodotou, Michael Y. Wang
    Seminars in Spine Surgery.2021; 33(3): 100888.     CrossRef
  • Spinal anesthesia in awake surgical procedures of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3709 patients
    Roberto J. Perez-Roman, Vaidya Govindarajan, Jean-Paul Bryant, Michael Y. Wang
    Neurosurgical Focus.2021; 51(6): E7.     CrossRef
  • Standardizing postoperative care for pediatric intradural Chiari decompressions to decrease length of stay
    David J. Mazur-Hart, Stephen G. Bowden, Brandi W. Pang, Nasser K. Yaghi, Joseph G. Nugent, Laurie D. Yablon, Wendy O. Domreis, Erika T. Ohm, Christina M. Sayama
    Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics.2021; 28(5): 579.     CrossRef
  • 11,960 View
  • 218 Download
  • 37 Web of Science
  • 38 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Impact of Iliac Crest Bone Grafting on Postoperative Outcomes and Complication Rates Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2019;16(4):772-779.   Published online July 8, 2019
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Impact of Iliac Crest Bone Grafting on Postoperative Outcomes and Complication Rates Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Neurospine. 2019;16(4):772-779.   Published online July 8, 2019
Close
Objective
The relationship between bone graft technique and postoperative outcomes for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) has not been well-defined. This study aims to determine the effect of iliac crest bone grafting (ICBG) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication rates following MIS TLIF.
Methods
Primary, single-level MIS TLIF patients were consecutively analyzed. Patients that prospectively received a percutaneous technique of ICBG were compared to patients that retrospectively received bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2). Complication rates were assessed perioperatively and up to 1 year postoperatively. Changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg pain were compared. Rates of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement at final follow-up for ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg scores were compared.
Results
One hundred forty-nine patients were included: 101 in the BMP-2 cohort and 48 in the ICBG cohort. The ICBG cohort demonstrated increases in intraoperative blood loss and shorter lengths of stay. ICBG patients also experienced longer operative times, though this did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences in complication or reoperation rates were identified. The ICBG cohort demonstrated greater improvements in VAS leg pain at 6-week and 12-week follow-up. No other significant differences in PROs or MCID achievement rates were identified.
Conclusion
Patients undergoing MIS TLIF with ICBG experienced clinically insignificant increases in intraoperative blood loss and did not experience increases in postoperative pain or disability. Complication and reoperation rates were similar between groups. These results suggest that ICBG is a safe option for MIS TLIF.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Posterior Wall Reconstruction Using Iliac Strut Graft in Posterior Acetabular Wall Fracture
    SINA HAGHIGHAT, MAZIAR MALEKZADE, ALI MOUSAPOUR, YAHYA SALIMI, VAHID FEIZOLAHI, GHOBAD RAMEZANI
    Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca.2026; 92(6): 343.     CrossRef
  • Analysis of Procedural Costs and Outcomes Between Autograft, BMP-2, and Viable Cellular Allograft in Lumbar Interbody Fusions
    Thomas P. Giannasca, Michael Mancini, Jake M. Laverdiere, Ekrem M. Ayhan, Marissa Gedman, Alexander K. Hahn, Laura Sanzari, Aris Yannopoulos
    Spine.2026; 51(7): 508.     CrossRef
  • A systematic review of bone graft products used in lumbar interbody fusion procedures for degenerative disc disease
    Anita Fitzgerald, Rachael McCool, Emma Carr, Paul Miller, Katie Reddish, Cynthia C Lohr, Elena Annoni, Brandon Lawrence
    North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2025; 21: 100579.     CrossRef
  • Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Where Are We Now?
    Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Arati Patel, Praveen V. Mummaneni
    Neurosurgery.2025; 96(3S): S33.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy and Safety of Osteobiologics for Lumbar Spinal Fusion
    Luca Ambrosio, Jordy Schol, Shota Tamagawa, Sathish Muthu, Daisuke Sakai, Rocco Papalia, Gianluca Vadalà, Vincenzo Denaro
    Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.2025; 107(18): 2110.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Efficacy of Bone Graft Materials in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Sami Al Eissa, Fahad Al Helal, Majed Abaalkhail, Abdullah Al Shehri, Raed Al Mousa, Abdullah Bin Shabib, Hussam Al Angari, Abdulrahman M. AlJahani, Dana W. AlDughiman
    Journal of Spine Practice.2025; 4(3): 88.     CrossRef
  • Comparative evaluation of clinical-radiological outcomes of Russian osteoplastic material BioOst in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion
    V. V. Khlebov, I. V. Volkov
    Russian Neurosurgical Journal named after Professor A. L. Polenov.2025; 17(3): 123.     CrossRef
  • Comparative Analysis of ABM/P-15, Bone Morphogenic Protein and Demineralized Bone Matrix after Instrumented Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ashwin Sathe, Sang-Ho Lee, Shin-Jae Kim, Sang Soo Eun, Yong Soo Choi, Shih-min Lee, Ju-Wan Seuk, Yoon Sun Lee, Sang-Ha Shin, Junseok Bae
    Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2022; 65(6): 825.     CrossRef
  • A BMP/Activin A Chimera Induces Posterolateral Spine Fusion in Nonhuman Primates at Lower Concentrations Than BMP-2
    Howard J. Seeherman, Christopher G. Wilson, Eric J. Vanderploeg, Christopher T. Brown, Pablo R. Morales, Douglas C. Fredricks, John M. Wozney
    Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.2021; 103(16): e64.     CrossRef
  • A Prospective, Multi-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Synthetic Bone Graft Material DBM Gel with rhBMP-2 versus DBM Gel Used during the TLIF Procedure in Patients with Lumbar Disc Disease
    Seung-Jae Hyun, Seung Hwan Yoon, Joo Han Kim, Jae Keun Oh, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun Jae Shin, Jiin Kang, Yoon Ha
    Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2021; 64(4): 562.     CrossRef
  • Autologous Bone Grafting in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery: An Evidence-Based Narrative Review
    Filippo Migliorini, Francesco Cuozzo, Ernesto Torsiello, Filippo Spiezia, Francesco Oliva, Nicola Maffulli
    Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(19): 4347.     CrossRef
  • Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion — A narrative review on the present status
    S. Phani Kiran, G. Sudhir
    Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma.2021; 22: 101592.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy for Whitlockite for Augmenting Spinal Fusion
    Su Yeon Kwon, Jung Hee Shim, Yu Ha Kim, Chang Su Lim, Seong Bae An, Inbo Han
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2021; 22(23): 12875.     CrossRef
  • 12,088 View
  • 250 Download
  • 11 Web of Science
  • 13 Crossref

Clinical Articles

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Radiographic Results of Minimally Invasive (MIS) Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LIF) Compared with Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Korean J Spine. 2013;10(2):65-71.   Published online June 30, 2013
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Radiographic Results of Minimally Invasive (MIS) Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LIF) Compared with Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Korean J Spine. 2013;10(2):65-71.   Published online June 30, 2013
Close
Objective

To evaluate the radiographic results of minimally invasive (MIS) anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

Methods

Twelve and nineteen patients who underwent MIS-ALIF, MIS-TLIF, respectively, from 2006 to 2008 were analyzed with a minimum 24-months' follow-up. Additionally, 18 patients treated with single level open TLIF surgery in 2007 were evaluated as a comparative group. X-rays and CT images were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. Fusion and subsidence rates were determined, and radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), fused segment angle (FSA), sacral slope angle (SSA), disc height (DH), and foraminal height (FH), were analyzed. These parameters were also compared between the open and MIS-TLIF groups.

Results

In the MIS interbody fusion group, statistically significant increases were observed in LLA, FSA, and DH and FH between preoperative and final values. The changes in LLA, FSA, and DH were significantly increased in the MIS-ALIF group compared with the MIS-TLIF group, but SSA and FH were not significantly different. No significant differences were seen between open and MIS-TLIF except for DH. The interbody subsidence and fusion rates of the MIS groups were 12.0±4% and 96%, respectively.

Conclusion

Radiographic results of MIS interbody fusion surgery are as favorable as those with conventional surgery regarding fusion, restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and lumbar lordosis. MIS-ALIF is more effective than MIS-TLIF for intervertebral disc height restoration and lumbar lordosis.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Complications of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Viksheth Basani, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Roger Härtl
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(Suppl 1): S15.     CrossRef
  • Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Kaveh Khajavi, Cristiano M. Menezes, Brett A. Braly, J. Alex Thomas
    European Spine Journal.2022; 31(9): 2248.     CrossRef
  • Minimally invasive techniques in treatment of adult spinal deformity
    Brian Panish, R Adams Cowley, Stephen Lockey, S. Babak Kalantar
    Seminars in Spine Surgery.2022; 34(4): 100991.     CrossRef
  • Clinical and radiologic outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5
    Marc Szadkowski, Sami Bahroun, Ivan Aleksic, Michiel Vande Kerckhove, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Vincent Fière, Henri d'Astorg
    Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery.2021; 26: 101312.     CrossRef
  • Patient selection for minimally invasive spine surgery
    Ibrahim Hussain, Dennis Timothy Lockney, Michael Y. Wang, Kai-Ming Fu, Praveen V. Mummaneni
    Seminars in Spine Surgery.2021; 33(3): 100887.     CrossRef
  • Influence of contoured versus straight rod on clinical outcomes and sagittal parameters in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) at L4/5 level-more than 5 years follow-up
    Yiwei Zhao, Jun Jia, Wubo Liu, Xi Chen, Ruopeng Mai, Yonghao Tian, Jiang Zhao, Xinyu Liu
    Journal of Orthopaedic Science.2020; 25(1): 89.     CrossRef
  • Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages
    Avani S Vaishnav, Philip Saville, Steven McAnany, Sertac Kirnaz, Christoph Wipplinger, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez, Roger Hartl, Jingyan Yang, Catherine Himo Gang, Sheeraz A Qureshi
    Operative Neurosurgery.2020; 18(5): 518.     CrossRef
  • Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide
    Sara Lener, Christoph Wipplinger, R. Nick Hernandez, Ibrahim Hussain, Sertac Kirnaz, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez, Franziska Anna Schmidt, Eliana Kim, Roger Härtl
    Global Spine Journal.2020; 10(2_suppl): 151S.     CrossRef
  • Distinct fusion intersegmental parameters regarding local sagittal balance provide similar clinical outcomes: a comparative study of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Fuping Li, Chen Li, Xin Xi, Zhili Zeng, Bin Ma, Ning Xie, Hang Wang, Yan Yu, Liming Cheng
    BMC Surgery.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion of L5–S1 using a novel implant with anterior plate fixation
    Marc Szadkowski, Henri d'Astorg, Haroun Bouhali, Ivan Aleksic, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Vincent Fière
    The Spine Journal.2020; 20(10): 1618.     CrossRef
  • Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review
    Brandon B. Carlson, Philip Saville, James Dowdell, Rie Goto, Avani Vaishnav, Catherine Himo Gang, Steven McAnany, Todd J. Albert, Sheeraz Qureshi
    The Spine Journal.2019; 19(5): 951.     CrossRef
  • Dynamic Posture-Related Preoperative Pain as a Single Clinical Criterion in Patient Selection for Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Without Direct Decompression
    Kai-Zheong Lim, Christopher Daly, Jessica Brown, Tony Goldschlager
    Global Spine Journal.2019; 9(6): 575.     CrossRef
  • Subsidence Rates After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review
    Mohamed Macki, Sharath Kumar Anand, Ashwin Surapaneni, Paul Park, Victor Chang
    World Neurosurgery.2019; 122: 599.     CrossRef
  • The Effects of Bone Microstructure on Subsidence Risk for ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF Spine Cages
    Vivek Palepu, Melvin D. Helgeson, Michael Molyneaux-Francis, Srinidhi Nagaraja
    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering.2019;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Biomechanics of L5/S1 in Long Thoracolumbosacral Constructs: A Cadaveric Study
    Bryan S. Lee, Kevin M. Walsh, Andrew T. Healy, Robb Colbrunn, Robert S. Butler, Ryan C. Goodwin, Michael P. Steinmetz, Thomas E. Mroz
    Global Spine Journal.2018; 8(6): 607.     CrossRef
  • Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery
    Kevin Y. Chang, Wellington K. Hsu
    Minimally Invasive Surgery.2018; 2018: 1.     CrossRef
  • How Does Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Influence Lumbar Radiologic Parameters?
    Cláudia Pereira, Pedro Santos Silva, Marisa Cunha, Rui Vaz, Paulo Pereira
    World Neurosurgery.2018; 116: e895.     CrossRef
  • Lumbar Lordosis Correction with Interbody Fusion: Systematic Literature Review and Analysis
    Robert J. Rothrock, Ian T. McNeill, Kurt Yaeger, Eric K. Oermann, Samuel K. Cho, John M. Caridi
    World Neurosurgery.2018; 118: 21.     CrossRef
  • Potential and Limitations of Neural Decompression in Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion—A Systematic Review
    Gernot Lang, Moritz Perrech, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez, Ibrahim Hussain, Brenton Pennicooke, Farah Maryam, Mauricio J. Avila, Roger Härtl
    World Neurosurgery.2017; 101: 99.     CrossRef
  • 10,663 View
  • 90 Download
  • 19 Crossref

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Single Incision Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Korean J Spine. 2012;9(2):92-97.   Published online June 30, 2012
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Single Incision Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Korean J Spine. 2012;9(2):92-97.   Published online June 30, 2012
Close
Objective

Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) offers some of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. However, an additional skin incision is necessary in order to gain these advantages. The author recently performed a modified PPSF through a single skin incision and it yielded good results. Here, we report the single incision percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (SIPPSF).

Methods

The medical records of 51 patients who underwent single segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw fixation (PSF) between December 2009 and December 2011 were reviewed. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the PSF technique used; conventional group (Group C), SIPPSF (Group S) and PPSF through multiple skin incisions (Group M). Operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL) and pain intensity before and after the operation using a numeric rating scale (NRS) were evaluated.

Results

The number of patients in Group S, Group C and Group M was 25, 17 and 9, respectively. The NRS demonstrated a reduction in pain intensity in all the patients, and there were no differences in NRS scoring between the three groups. Group S showed a reduction in the EBL compared to Group C (p=0.001) and a reduction in the operation time compared to Group M(p=0.003).

Conclusion

The author supposes that the type of skin incision does not correlate significantly with the clinical results of TLIF with PPSF. However, it can be considered that SIPPSF offers the advantage of avoiding an additional paramedian skin incision.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  Crossref logo
  • Single midline skin incision for long segment posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation
    Nathan Beucler, Ibrahima Tine, Arnaud Dagain
    Neurochirurgie.2023; 69(4): 101457.     CrossRef
  • Instrumentation Removal following Minimally Invasive Posterior Percutaneous Pedicle Screw-Rod Stabilization (PercStab) of Thoracolumbar Fractures Is Not Always Required
    Neil Manson, Dana El-Mughayyar, Erin Bigney, Eden Richardson, Edward Abraham
    Advances in Orthopedics.2020; 2020: 1.     CrossRef
  • 9,979 View
  • 87 Download
  • 2 Crossref

Original Article

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients.
Korean J Spine. 2009;6(3):156-162.
Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
Include:
Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients.
Korean J Spine. 2009;6(3):156-162.
Close
OBJECTIVE
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(mini-TLIF) is an increasingly popular method because of several advantages, including rapid patient recovery, less postoperative pain, and minimized iatrogenic injury of soft tissue and muscle. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and imaging outcomes after mini-TLIF procedures. Results are compared with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion(oPLIF, Group B) and mini-TLIF(Group A) approach.
METHODS
Between March 2007 and May 2008, mini-TLIF and oPLIF were performed in 23 and 36 consecutive patients with single or multilevel lumbar degenerative disease. Clinical outcomes were assessed by postoperative visual analogue scale(VAS) score, operation time, volume of blood loss, number of days to ambulation and duration of hospital stay. To assess fusion rate, all patients underwent postoperative radiography. And postoperative access were compared with an institutional reference series of 36 oPLIF procedures.
RESULTS
Fusion success outcomes were obtained in 23(100%) out of 23 patients with mini-TLIF procedure. Mean VAS scores decreased from 8.2 to 1.9 in group A and from 8.1 to 2.4 in group B. The operation time, volume of blood loss, number of days to ambulation and duration of hospital stay were reduced in group A compared with group B. There was no complication associated to mini-TLIF procedure.
CONCLUSION
Mini-TLIF yielded good clinical and radiological outcomes with safe and low complication. Further long- term investigating study is required to assess the definitive advantage of mini-TLIF.
  • 3,306 View
  • 28 Download