{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T20:10:08Z","timestamp":1787775008877,"version":"build-2784847793"},"reference-count":48,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"2","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["FOC"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,8]]},"abstract":"\n Object<\/jats:title>\n Previous studies comparing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) with open TLIF have demonstrated that MITLIF reduces blood loss and decreases postoperative pain while preserving fusion rates and reducing complications. In this study, the authors wanted to compare outcomes of MITLIF with those of open TLIF to determine whether MITLIF also improves postoperative functional mobility and decreases the usage of pain medication.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n In total, 75 consecutive patients who underwent either single-level open TLIF or MITLIF at the University of California, San Francisco, between 2006 and 2011 were included, and patients were followed up for an average of 5.05 years. Fifty patients underwent MITLIF and 25 underwent open TLIF. Primary outcomes included administration of morphine-equivalent narcotics and functional status on postoperative Day 1. Secondary outcomes included operative characteristics, complications, long-term fusion rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n No statistically significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), level of disease, or surgical indication were detected between the open TLIF and MITLIF groups. Similarly, preoperative medication usage did not significantly differ between these groups. Intraoperatively, compared with TLIF, MITLIF resulted in decreased lengths of operation, lower blood loss, and fewer complications (p < 0.05). Total administration of morphine-equivalent pain medication in the hospital also tended to be lower in the MITLIF than in the TLIF group. Functional assessment by physical therapy on postoperative Day 1 demonstrated higher function in the MITLIF patients for transfer-related tasks, ambulatory ability, and distance walked than in the TLIF patients (p < 0.05). This translated to shorter inpatient hospitalizations (6.05 vs 4.8 days for open TLIF vs MITLIF patients, respectively, p = 0.006) and an average cost reduction of $3885 per MITLIF patient. Long-term fusion rates were 92% in the MITLIF group and 100% in the open TLIF group (p = 0.09). Preoperative VAS pain scores were 7.1 for the MITLIF patients and 7.6 for the TLIF patients (p = 0.26). At the last follow-up, the reported VAS pain score was 2.9 in the MITLIF patients and 3.5 in the open TLIF patients, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). There was also no statistically significant difference in the degree change in this score (p = 0.44).<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n The MITLIF approach achieves improved functional mobility, decreases the usage of postoperative pain medication, and significantly reduces cost compared with open TLIF while preserving long-term fusion rates. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study comparing the postoperative usage of pain medication between treatments in the postoperative period before discharge.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.5.focus1377","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,8,1]],"date-time":"2013-08-01T09:59:17Z","timestamp":1375351157000},"page":"E6","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":63,"title":["Short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: is there a difference?"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"35","author":[{"given":"Jason S.","family":"Cheng","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Priscilla","family":"Park","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hai","family":"Le","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Lori","family":"Reisner","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Dean","family":"Chou","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Praveen V.","family":"Mummaneni","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"479","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3182055cac","article-title":"Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life","volume":"24","author":"Adogwa","year":"2011"},{"key":"b2-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E748","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000240211.23617.ae","article-title":"Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome","volume":"31","author":"Anand","year":"2006"},{"key":"b3-0350006","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"560","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI.2008.9.08142","article-title":"Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Clinical article","volume":"9","author":"Dhall","year":"2008"},{"key":"b4-0350006","series-title":"Acta Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.3109\/17453670902930008","article-title":"Reduced hospital stay, morphine consumption, and pain intensity with local infiltration analgesia after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty","volume":"80","author":"Essving","year":"2009"},{"key":"b5-0350006","series-title":"Minim Invasive Surg","first-page":"657342","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge","volume":"2012","author":"Habib","year":"2012"},{"key":"b6-0350006","series-title":"Reg Anesth Pain Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"510","DOI":"10.1097\/00115550-200811000-00002","article-title":"A pre-emptive multimodal pathway featuring peripheral nerve block improves perioperative outcomes after major orthopedic surgery","volume":"33","author":"Hebl","year":"2008"},{"key":"b7-0350006","series-title":"Los Angeles Times","article-title":"Hospital stays cost more in Northern California than Southern California","author":"Helfand","year":"2011"},{"key":"b8-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"567","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200103010-00023","article-title":"Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"26","author":"Humphreys","year":"2001"},{"key":"b9-0350006","series-title":"Neurol Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"38","DOI":"10.1179\/016164110X12681290831289","article-title":"Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity","volume":"33","author":"Mehta","year":"2011"},{"key":"b10-0350006","series-title":"Orthop Clin North Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1016\/S0030-5898(01)00008-6","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"33","author":"Moskowitz","year":"2002"},{"key":"b11-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E1384","DOI":"10.1227\/01.NEU.0000315883.02943.1E","article-title":"Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability","volume":"62","author":"Mummaneni","year":"2008"},{"issue":"2","key":"b12-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E16","DOI":"10.3171\/FOC\/2008\/25\/8\/E16","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up","volume":"25","author":"Park","year":"2008"},{"key":"b13-0350006","series-title":"World Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2011.09.013","article-title":"Costeffectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years","volume":"78","author":"Parker","year":"2012"},{"key":"b14-0350006","series-title":"World Neurosurg","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis","author":"Parker","year":"2013"},{"key":"b15-0350006","series-title":"Clin Nurse Spec","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.1097\/NUR.0b013e31824590e6","article-title":"Impact of early mobilization protocol on the medical-surgical inpatient population: an integrated review of literature","volume":"26","author":"Pashikanti","year":"2012"},{"key":"b16-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1385","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be","article-title":"Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"34","author":"Peng","year":"2009"},{"key":"b17-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"569","DOI":"10.1097\/00006123-200103000-00022","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results","volume":"48","author":"Rosenberg","year":"2001"},{"key":"b18-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"368","DOI":"10.1227\/01.NEU.0000103493.25162.18","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients","volume":"54","author":"Salehi","year":"2004"},{"key":"b19-0350006","series-title":"Int Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1683","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-008-0687-8","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience","volume":"33","author":"Schizas","year":"2009"},{"issue":"Suppl","key":"b20-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S1","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results","volume":"18","author":"Schwender","year":"2005"},{"key":"b21-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1615","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases","volume":"35","author":"Shunwu","year":"2010"},{"key":"b22-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"92","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e","article-title":"Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability","volume":"19","author":"Villavicencio","year":"2006"},{"key":"b23-0350006","series-title":"Surg Neurol Int","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.4103\/2152-7806.63905","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"1","author":"Villavicencio","year":"2010"},{"key":"b24-0350006","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1780","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1404-z","article-title":"Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2","volume":"19","author":"Wang","year":"2010"},{"key":"b1-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"479","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0b013e3182055cac","article-title":"Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life","volume":"24","author":"Adogwa","year":"2011"},{"key":"b2-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E748","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000240211.23617.ae","article-title":"Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome","volume":"31","author":"Anand","year":"2006"},{"key":"b3-0350006","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"560","DOI":"10.3171\/SPI.2008.9.08142","article-title":"Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. Clinical article","volume":"9","author":"Dhall","year":"2008"},{"key":"b4-0350006","series-title":"Acta Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.3109\/17453670902930008","article-title":"Reduced hospital stay, morphine consumption, and pain intensity with local infiltration analgesia after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty","volume":"80","author":"Essving","year":"2009"},{"key":"b5-0350006","series-title":"Minim Invasive Surg","first-page":"657342","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a perspective on current evidence and clinical knowledge","volume":"2012","author":"Habib","year":"2012"},{"key":"b6-0350006","series-title":"Reg Anesth Pain Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"510","DOI":"10.1097\/00115550-200811000-00002","article-title":"A pre-emptive multimodal pathway featuring peripheral nerve block improves perioperative outcomes after major orthopedic surgery","volume":"33","author":"Hebl","year":"2008"},{"key":"b7-0350006","series-title":"Los Angeles Times","article-title":"Hospital stays cost more in Northern California than Southern California","author":"Helfand","year":"2011"},{"key":"b8-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"567","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200103010-00023","article-title":"Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"26","author":"Humphreys","year":"2001"},{"key":"b9-0350006","series-title":"Neurol Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"38","DOI":"10.1179\/016164110X12681290831289","article-title":"Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity","volume":"33","author":"Mehta","year":"2011"},{"key":"b10-0350006","series-title":"Orthop Clin North Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1016\/S0030-5898(01)00008-6","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"33","author":"Moskowitz","year":"2002"},{"key":"b11-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E1384","DOI":"10.1227\/01.NEU.0000315883.02943.1E","article-title":"Percutaneous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability","volume":"62","author":"Mummaneni","year":"2008"},{"issue":"2","key":"b12-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E16","DOI":"10.3171\/FOC\/2008\/25\/8\/E16","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years' follow-up","volume":"25","author":"Park","year":"2008"},{"key":"b13-0350006","series-title":"World Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2011.09.013","article-title":"Costeffectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years","volume":"78","author":"Parker","year":"2012"},{"key":"b14-0350006","series-title":"World Neurosurg","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis","author":"Parker","year":"2013"},{"key":"b15-0350006","series-title":"Clin Nurse Spec","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.1097\/NUR.0b013e31824590e6","article-title":"Impact of early mobilization protocol on the medical-surgical inpatient population: an integrated review of literature","volume":"26","author":"Pashikanti","year":"2012"},{"key":"b16-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1385","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be","article-title":"Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"34","author":"Peng","year":"2009"},{"key":"b17-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"569","DOI":"10.1097\/00006123-200103000-00022","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results","volume":"48","author":"Rosenberg","year":"2001"},{"key":"b18-0350006","series-title":"Neurosurgery","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"368","DOI":"10.1227\/01.NEU.0000103493.25162.18","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients","volume":"54","author":"Salehi","year":"2004"},{"key":"b19-0350006","series-title":"Int Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1683","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-008-0687-8","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience","volume":"33","author":"Schizas","year":"2009"},{"issue":"Suppl","key":"b20-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S1","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000132291.50455.d0","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results","volume":"18","author":"Schwender","year":"2005"},{"key":"b21-0350006","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1615","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe3","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases","volume":"35","author":"Shunwu","year":"2010"},{"key":"b22-0350006","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"92","DOI":"10.1097\/01.bsd.0000185277.14484.4e","article-title":"Perioperative complications in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior-posterior reconstruction for lumbar disc degeneration and instability","volume":"19","author":"Villavicencio","year":"2006"},{"key":"b23-0350006","series-title":"Surg Neurol Int","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.4103\/2152-7806.63905","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"1","author":"Villavicencio","year":"2010"},{"key":"b24-0350006","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1780","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1404-z","article-title":"Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2","volume":"19","author":"Wang","year":"2010"}],"container-title":["Neurosurgical Focus"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE6.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE6.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE6.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,6]],"date-time":"2026-06-06T08:21:42Z","timestamp":1780734102000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE6.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013,8]]},"references-count":48,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2013.5.focus1377","relation":{},"ISSN":["1092-0684"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1092-0684","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013,8]]}}}