↓ Skip to main content

Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a trans-multifidus approach: a safe and effective alternative to open-TLIF
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0234-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenzhi Zhang, Xu Li, Xifu Shang, Xiang Xu, Yefeng Hu, Rui He, Liqun Duan, Xiaodong Ling, Feng Zhang

Abstract

Application of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is limited by long fluoroscopy time and a steep learning curve. Herein, MI-TLIF was modified using a trans-multifidus approach, assisted by microscope, termed MMI-TLIF, and the clinical outcomes of MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF were compared. Forty-nine patients treated with MMI-TLIF were matched with 49 subjects who underwent open-TLIF. Patients were assessed using the North American Spine Society Score (NASS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) before surgery and during follow-up (6 months and 2 years). The four-type Bridwell anterior fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates at 2 years. The median fluoroscopic time did not differ significantly between the MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups. MMI-TLIF surgery took significantly longer than open-TLIF (91.3 vs. 82.5 min; P < 0.05). Meanwhile, MMI-TLIF patients lost significantly less blood than open-TLIF patients (75.3 vs. 215.2 ml; P < 0.05), and MMI-TLIF patients were hospitalized for less long than open-TLIF patients (3.7 vs. 6.9 days; P < 0.05) and reported less pain, faster ambulation, and lower morphine intake than open-TLIF patients (all P < 0.05). The NASS, ODI, VAS, and SF-36 scores were significantly improved 6 months and 2 years postsurgery in both groups, compared with preoperative values, and similar values were obtained for both groups. Finally, fusion rates were similar in MMI-TLIF and open-TLIF patients. Overall, these findings strongly suggest the superiority of MMI-TLIF to open-TLIF. Therefore, MMI-TLIF could be a safe and effective alternative to MI-TLIF and open-TLIF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 46%
Engineering 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,336,434
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#646
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,168
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#21
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.