Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of one-level lumbar disease: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This is a meta-analysis to compare the clinical results between invasive and lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) for one-level lumbar disease. Methods: Studies were identified from Pub Med, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biological Medicine Database, China Na-tional Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database, by using the keywords minimally invasive, MIS or mini-open, open and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The published studies with no language and year restrictions were included. Only studies comparing invasive and TLIF for the treatment of one-level lumbar disease were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. All data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.1. The outcomes were surgery re-lated indexes(operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, intraoperative radiation time, bedridden time,hospital stay and hospital expenses), visual analogue score(VAS) of postoperative back pain and leg pain,postoperative Oswestry Disability Index(ODI), complications, reoperation rate and fusion rate. Results: Eighteen studies(five prospective cohort studies, twelve retrospective cohort studies, only one randomized controlled trial) with 1437 patients were included in this meta-analysis(691 patients for invasive group, 746 patients for group). Quality evaluation indicated that all of included studies were high quality cohort studies(NOS range: 5-9). The blood loss(P 0.00001), postoperative drainage(P 0.003), bedridden time(P =0.002), hospital stay(P0.00001), hospital expenses(P=0.0008), VAS of back pain at 3 days after surgery and the final follow-up(P0.00001) were significantly lower in invasive group than those in group;intraoperative radiation time in invasive group was significantly higher(P0.0001); there were no significant differences between invasive and group in operation time, complications, reoperation rate, fusion rate, VAS of leg pain and ODI(P0.05). Conclusions: Compared with traditional surgery,minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion reduces blood loss, allows early postoperative recovery, relieves postoperative back pain, and increases intraoperative radiation time, while achieves comparable postoperative leg pain improvement and complication rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.075 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".