Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41740626

MIS-TLIF Versus Open TLIF in Combined Lumbar Stenosis and Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis : Of Discharge Timing and Treatment Pricing.

Aleksandr Krutko·Nikita Kuzmin·Evgeniy Baykov·Olga Leonova
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: An open-label, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the MIS-TLIF over the O-TLIF in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis by comparing the clinical efficacy and safety. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In patients with combined lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis, it remains uncertain whether minimally invasive fusion surgery is noninferior to the open approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label, noninferiority trial involving patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis combined with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either MIS-TLIF or open TLIF surgery. The primary endpoint was the reduction in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) score from baseline to three months postsurgery, with a noninferiority margin of 12 points. Secondary outcomes included three-month changes from baseline in back and leg pain, neuropathic pain, satisfaction with treatment, intraoperative data, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the modified intention-to-treat population, the mean difference was 0.4, with the corresponding 90% CI of -5.7 to 6.5, having a lower bound below the noninferiority margin of 12. Similar results were obtained by analysis of the per-protocol population. 82.8% of patients achieved the MCID for the ODI. Results for secondary outcomes (clinical scales, complications) showed no significant differences between the treatment groups (all P >0.05). Although the open TLIF group had a hospital stay that was 1.5 days longer ( P =0.005) and required additional analgesia more frequently ( P =0.026), direct costs were 10.5% higher in the MIS-TLIF group ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first high-quality study comparing open TLIF and MIS-TLIF with a validated primary endpoint. Among patients with combined lumbar degenerative stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF resulted in clinical outcomes at three months that were noninferior to those with open TLIF.

Explore related subjects

HumansSpondylolisthesisSpinal StenosisSpinal FusionLumbar VertebraeFemaleMaleTreatment OutcomeMiddle AgedAgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresTime FactorsCost-Benefit AnalysisDisability EvaluationTLIFlumbar fusionlumbar stenosisminimally invasivenoninferiorrandomizedspondylolisthesisJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence TrialComparative Study

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Aleksandr Krutko, Nikita Kuzmin, Evgeniy Baykov, Olga Leonova. 2026-02-23. MIS-TLIF Versus Open TLIF in Combined Lumbar Stenosis and Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis : Of Discharge Timing and Treatment Pricing.. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000005669

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Aged subjectComparative Study subjectCost-Benefit Analysis subjectEquivalence Trial subjectFemale subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectLumbar Vertebrae subjectMale subjectMiddle Aged subjectMinimally Invasive Surgical Procedures subjectRandomized controlled trials study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

The prevalence of isthmic and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of 1376 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Typically, spondylolisthesis is an asymptomatic spinal condition that is often captured accidently in radiographic studies. The limited studies reviewing incidence primarily used lateral radiographs, which lack the granularity of advanced imaging. In response, computed tomography (CT) has been recommended to enhance the accuracy of spondylolisthesis diagnosis (degenerative versus isthmic). In the present study, we sought to determine the prevalence of isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis using CT imaging. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 1,680 patients who underwent abdominal/pelvic CT scans at a single level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2017, to January 31, 2017. RESULTS: A total of 1,680 CT scans were screened, of which 1,376 patient scans met the inclusion criteria of having undergone complete imaging (axial and sagittal images). The average age of the study population was 57.1 (standard deviation, 18.7) years; 51.1% were female, and 83.2% were Caucasian. The prevalence of isthmic spondylolisthesis was 5.4% (n&#xa0;=&#xa0;71): 3.6% of cases were at the L5-S1 level, 2.1% were at the L4-L5 level, and 0.6% were at the L3-L4 level. The female-to-male ratio was 0.73:1. The prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was higher at 21.5% (n&#xa0;=&#xa0;285), and the level most commonly affected was L4-L5 (11.8%), followed by L5-S1 (9.7%) and L3-L4 (4.6%). The female-to-male ratio was 1.3:1. There was a higher prevalence of degenerative spondylolisthesis in women at L4-L5 (51.2% vs. 35.6%; P&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.001). CONCLUSION: We found that degenerative spondylolisthesis was more prevalent, occurring primarily in older women, between the L4-L5 vertebrae. On the other hand, isthmic spondylolisthesis more commonly occurred within male patients between the L5-S1 vertebrae. Our study is one of the first to recognize a high rate of degenerative spondylolisthesis within the L5-S1 region, highlighting the utility of CT scan to visualize spinal translation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The benefits of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas C/D) remain uncertain. This randomized trial compared clinical, radiographic, and safety outcomes of OLIF and TLIF. METHODS: From November 2018 to December 2021, a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled 260 adults with single-level severe stenosis and instability. In total, 224 patients were randomized to OLIF or TLIF. Prespecified outcomes followed consolidated standards of reporting trials. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale back/leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with minimal clinically important difference thresholds of ODI &#x2265;12-13 points or &#x2265;30% improvement, and visual analog scale &#x2265;1.5-2.0 points. Radiographic measures included disc height, lumbar and segmental lordosis, and canal cross-sectional area (CSA). Complications were recorded. Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, the trial was registered with ISRCTN.com , and all patients provided written informed consent. RESULTS: In total, 224 patients were randomized, 5 were lost to follow-up (TLIF n = 2, OLIF n = 3). Baseline features were comparable. OLIF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stay (all P < .05). Both groups achieved significant, clinically meaningful improvements. OLIF showed greater back pain reduction at 3-6 months and 2 years ( P < .05) and superior ODI improvement at 3 and 6 months ( P < .001), although long-term ODI scores were similar. Radiographically, OLIF provided greater restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis (all P < .001) and demonstrated progressive CSA increase (dynamic decompression), whereas TLIF achieved immediate, sustained CSA enlargement. Fusion rates were comparable at 1-2 years. Complication rates were low and similar (7.3% TLIF vs 5.5% OLIF), with most OLIF-specific events transient. CONCLUSION: Both OLIF and TLIF yield improvements in severe lumbar stenosis. OLIF offers perioperative advantages, earlier functional recovery, radiographic restoration, and dynamic canal remodeling, supporting its role as an equivalent alternative for lumbar spinal stenosis with some secondary advantages.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Mitomycin C in the Endoscopic Treatment of Airway Stenosis: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of adjuvant MMC in the endoscopic treatment of airway stenoses. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. REVIEW METHODS: A literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The PICOS tool was used to determine the eligibility criteria for this study. A single arm meta-analysis was performed for stenosis resolution, the rate of patients requiring multiple endoscopic procedures, and the rate of patients requiring other surgical treatments. RESULTS: A total number of 358 patients (median age: 48.0&#x2009;years; 95% CI 44.8-50.8) were included. The median follow-up was 25.2&#x2009;months (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;244/358; 95% CI 15.4-38.3). Overall, the cumulative stenosis resolution rate was 76.37% (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;187/254; 95% CI 59.72-89.64), the rate of patients requiring multiple endoscopic procedures was 52.33% (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;131/260; 95% CI 32.03-72.25), and the rate of patients requiring other surgical treatments was 4.08% (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;26/310; 95% CI 0.37-11.48). The median intervention-free interval was 366&#x2009;days (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;155/358; 95% CI 270-696). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not allow definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of adjuvant MMC in reducing recurrence or prolonging intervention-free intervals in airway stenosis. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of MMC and to inform evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and treatment use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Humans↗