Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Thoracolumbar Fractures Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to pool the available data comparing MIS to open surgery for thoracolumbar fractures and provide a more comprehensive assessment of this topic. BACKGROUND: There remains a debate over whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or open fixation provides superior outcomes for patients with thoracolumbar fractures. While several randomized controlled trials and prospective studies have compared these two approaches, the published studies are limited by sample size. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) databases was performed on October 1, 2024. The extracted data consisted of complications, surgery-related parameters, early and late postoperative back pain, and postoperative regional kyphosis. RESULTS: Five RCTs and five prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 584 patients, with 299 in the MIS group and 285 in the open group. MIS patients were shown to have less EBL (MD=-155.86; 95% CI: -217.97 to -93.76, P <0.001), a shorter LOS (MD=-3.34; 95% CI: -4.62 to -2.06, P <0.001), lower pain scores during the early postoperative period (MD=-1.14; 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.71, P <0.001), and less regional kyphosis (MD=-5.17; 95% CI: -7.17 to -3.16, P <0.001), even when stratifying by study type. In addition, fluoroscopy time was longer in the MIS group (MD=0.60; 95% CI: 0.21-0.98, P =0.003), although this difference was not seen when looking at RCTs only. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with thoracolumbar fractures, treatment with MIS was associated with decreased EBL, shorter LOS, earlier pain reduction, and less regional kyphosis compared with treatment with open fixation. In addition, higher radiation exposure was seen among patients treated with MIS. While MIS offers several potential benefits, both MIS and open fixation remain safe and reliable options for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".