{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,31]],"date-time":"2026-10-31T00:37:16Z","timestamp":1793407036867,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":30,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"5","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>OBJECTIVE<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as \u2265 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p &lt; 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p &lt; 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032).<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>CONCLUSIONS<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2021.10.spine211128","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,12,31]],"date-time":"2021-12-31T07:16:35Z","timestamp":1640934995000},"page":"753-766","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":28,"title":["Minimally invasive versus open lumbar spinal fusion: a matched study investigating patient-reported and surgical outcomes"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"James","family":"Mooney","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Giorgos D.","family":"Michalopoulos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"},{"name":"Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohammed Ali","family":"Alvi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"},{"name":"Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Daniel","family":"Zeitouni","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Andrew K.","family":"Chan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Praveen V.","family":"Mummaneni","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Erica F.","family":"Bisson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Brandon A.","family":"Sherrod","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Regis W.","family":"Haid","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, Georgia;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"John J.","family":"Knightly","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, New Jersey;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Clinton J.","family":"Devin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Steamboat Orthopaedic and Spine Institute, Steamboat Springs, Colorado;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Brenton","family":"Pennicooke","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Anthony L.","family":"Asher","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Neuroscience Institute, Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohamad","family":"Bydon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"},{"name":"Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"b1","series-title":"J Orthop Surg Res","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"229","DOI":"10.1186\/s13018-019-1266-y","article-title":"Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis","volume":"14","author":"Hammad A","year":"2019","unstructured":"Hammad A, Wirries A, Ardeshiri A, Nikiforov O, Geiger F. Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):229.3133136410.1186\/s13018-019-1266-y"},{"issue":"5","key":"b2","series-title":"Indian J Orthop","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"464","DOI":"10.4103\/0019-5413.189607","article-title":"Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"50","author":"Kulkarni AG","year":"2016","unstructured":"Kulkarni AG, Bohra H, Dhruv A, Sarraf A, Bassi A, Patil VM. Minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50(5):464\u2013472.10.4103\/0019-5413.18960727746487"},{"issue":"3","key":"b3","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"349","DOI":"10.3171\/2020.3.SPINE191239","article-title":"Open versus minimally invasive decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database","volume":"33","author":"Bisson EF","year":"2020","unstructured":"Bisson EF, Mummaneni PV, Virk MS, Knightly J, Alvi MA, Goyal A,  Open versus minimally invasive decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(3):349\u2013359.10.3171\/2020.3.SPINE191239"},{"issue":"7","key":"b4","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"922","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2017.02.003","article-title":"Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry","volume":"17","author":"McGirt MJ","year":"2017","unstructured":"McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Mummaneni P, Knightly J, Pfortmiller D, Foley K, Asher AL. Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry. Spine J. 2017;17(7):922\u2013932.10.1016\/j.spinee.2017.02.00328254672"},{"issue":"12","key":"b5","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3141","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-017-5180-x","article-title":"Minimally invasive spine surgery in lumbar spondylodiscitis: a retrospective single-center analysis of 67 cases","volume":"26","author":"Tschugg A","year":"2017","unstructured":"Tschugg A, Hartmann S, Lener S, Rietzler A, Sabrina N, Thom\u00e9 C. Minimally invasive spine surgery in lumbar spondylodiscitis: a retrospective single-center analysis of 67 cases. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(12):3141\u20133146.10.1007\/s00586-017-5180-x28608178"},{"issue":"2","key":"b6","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E11","DOI":"10.3171\/2017.5.FOCUS17188","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database","volume":"43","author":"Mummaneni PV","year":"2017","unstructured":"Mummaneni PV, Bisson EF, Kerezoudis P, Glassman S, Foley K, Slotkin JR,  Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;43(2):E11.10.3171\/2017.5.FOCUS17188"},{"issue":"2","key":"b7","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"155","DOI":"10.3171\/2019.1.SPINE18770","article-title":"Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions","volume":"31","author":"Finkelstein JA","year":"2019","unstructured":"Finkelstein JA, Schwartz CE. Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(2):155\u2013164.10.3171\/2019.1.SPINE1877031370009"},{"issue":"6","key":"b8","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"847","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2020.01.010","article-title":"Measuring clinically relevant improvement after lumbar spine surgery: is it time for something new?","volume":"20","author":"Asher AM","year":"2020","unstructured":"Asher AM, Oleisky ER, Pennings JS, Khan I, Sivaganesan A, Devin CJ,  Measuring clinically relevant improvement after lumbar spine surgery: is it time for something new? Spine J. 2020;20(6):847\u2013856.10.1016\/j.spinee.2020.01.01032001385"},{"key":"b9","article-title":"R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing","author":"R Core Team","unstructured":"R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Accessed October 12, 2021. https:\/\/www.R-project.org\/"},{"issue":"10","key":"b10","series-title":"Stat Med","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2305","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.8904","article-title":"More robust estimation of average treatment effects using kernel optimal matching in an observational study of spine surgical interventions","volume":"40","author":"Kallus N","year":"2021","unstructured":"Kallus N, Pennicooke B, Santacatterina M. More robust estimation of average treatment effects using kernel optimal matching in an observational study of spine surgical interventions. Stat Med. 2021;40(10):2305\u20132320.10.1002\/sim.8904"},{"issue":"1","key":"b11","series-title":"Stat Sci","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1214\/09-STS313","article-title":"Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward","volume":"25","author":"Stuart EA","year":"2010","unstructured":"Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):1\u201321.10.1214\/09-STS313"},{"issue":"1","key":"b12","series-title":"Sci Rep","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"6088","DOI":"10.1038\/s41598-021-85519-5","article-title":"Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology","volume":"11","author":"Kimachi M","year":"2021","unstructured":"Kimachi M, Onishi A, Tajika A, Kimachi K, Furukawa TA. Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6088.10.1038\/s41598-021-85519-533731727"},{"issue":"1","key":"b13","series-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-021-01282-1","article-title":"Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research","volume":"21","author":"Fortin SP","year":"2021","unstructured":"Fortin SP, Johnston SS, Schuemie MJ. Applied comparison of large-scale propensity score matching and cardinality matching for causal inference in observational research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):109.10.1186\/s12874-021-01282-134030640"},{"issue":"1-2","key":"b14","series-title":"World Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"230","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2013.01.041","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis","volume":"82","author":"Parker SL","year":"2014","unstructured":"Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1-2):230\u2013238.2332137910.1016\/j.wneu.2013.01.041"},{"issue":"17","key":"b15","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 F","year":"2010","unstructured":"Shunwu F, Xing Z, Fengdong Z, Xiangqian F. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(17):1615\u20131620.10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181c70fe320479702"},{"issue":"6","key":"b16","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 C","year":"2009","unstructured":"Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop. 2009;33(6):1683\u20131688.1902357110.1007\/s00264-008-0687-8"},{"issue":"13","key":"b17","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 CW","year":"2009","unstructured":"Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2009;34(13):1385\u20131389.10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be19478658"},{"issue":"6","key":"b18","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","volume":"9","author":"Dhall SS","year":"2008","unstructured":"Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV. 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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(6):560\u2013565.10.3171\/SPI.2008.9.0814219035748"},{"issue":"3","key":"b19","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"416","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.2.SPINE14973","article-title":"Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review","volume":"24","author":"Goldstein CL","year":"2016","unstructured":"Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(3):416\u2013427.10.3171\/2015.2.SPINE1497326565767"},{"key":"b20","article-title":"Gartner Hype Cycle","author":"Gartner.","unstructured":"Gartner.  Gartner Hype Cycle. Accessed October 12, 2021. https:\/\/www.gartner.com\/en\/research\/methodologies\/gartner-hype-cycle"},{"key":"b21","series-title":"Clin Neurol Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"106098","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clineuro.2020.106098","article-title":"Patients with a depressive and\/or anxiety disorder can achieve optimum long term outcomes after surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)","volume":"197","author":"Kashlan O","year":"2020","unstructured":"Kashlan O, Swong K, Alvi MA, Bisson EF, Mummaneni PV, Knightly J,  Patients with a depressive and\/or anxiety disorder can achieve optimum long term outcomes after surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis: analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;197:106098.3271756210.1016\/j.clineuro.2020.106098"},{"issue":"1","key":"b22","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"73","DOI":"10.3171\/2020.6.SPINE20592","article-title":"Long-term impact of obesity on patient-reported outcomes and patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery: an observational study","volume":"34","author":"Park C","year":"2021","unstructured":"Park C, Garcia AN, Cook C, Shaffrey CI, Gottfried ON. Long-term impact of obesity on patient-reported outcomes and patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery: an observational study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;34(1):73\u201382.10.3171\/2020.6.SPINE20592"},{"key":"b23","series-title":"Clin Neurol Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"27","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clineuro.2018.12.012","article-title":"Impact of obesity on outcomes following lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"177","author":"Goyal A","year":"2019","unstructured":"Goyal A, Elminawy M, Kerezoudis P, Lu VM, Yolcu Y, Alvi MA, Bydon M. Impact of obesity on outcomes following lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019;177:27\u201336.3058309310.1016\/j.clineuro.2018.12.012"},{"issue":"2","key":"b24","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"158","DOI":"10.3171\/2016.7.SPINE16448","article-title":"Impact of obesity on complications and outcomes: a comparison of fusion and nonfusion lumbar spine surgery","volume":"26","author":"Onyekwelu I","year":"2017","unstructured":"Onyekwelu I, Glassman SD, Asher AL, Shaffrey CI, Mummaneni PV, Carreon LY. Impact of obesity on complications and outcomes: a comparison of fusion and nonfusion lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(2):158\u2013162.10.3171\/2016.7.SPINE1644827740396"},{"issue":"4","key":"b25","series-title":"Global Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"394","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0035-1570750","article-title":"The effects of obesity on spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature","volume":"6","author":"Jackson KL II","year":"2016","unstructured":"Jackson KL II, Devine JG. The effects of obesity on spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Global Spine J. 2016;6(4):394\u2013400.2719074310.1055\/s-0035-1570750"},{"key":"b26","series-title":"J Clin Neurosci","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2015.10.034","article-title":"Impact of obesity on lumbar spinal surgery outcomes","volume":"28","author":"Cao J","year":"2016","unstructured":"Cao J, Kong L, Meng F, Zhang Y, Shen Y. Impact of obesity on lumbar spinal surgery outcomes. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;28:1\u20136.10.1016\/j.jocn.2015.10.03427021227"},{"issue":"1","key":"b27","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","first-page":"56","article-title":"The impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes after lumbar fusion","volume":"40","author":"De la Garza-Ramos R","year":"2015","unstructured":"De la Garza-Ramos R, Bydon M, Abt NB, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Bydon A,  The impact of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes after lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(1):56\u201361."},{"issue":"4","key":"b28","series-title":"Neurosurg Focus","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E8","DOI":"10.3171\/2015.7.FOCUS15266","article-title":"Unintended durotomy in lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: a 10-year systematic review of the literature","volume":"39","author":"Ghobrial GM","year":"2015","unstructured":"Ghobrial GM, Theofanis T, Darden BV, Arnold P, Fehlings MG, Harrop JS. Unintended durotomy in lumbar degenerative spinal surgery: a 10-year systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E8.2642434810.3171\/2015.7.FOCUS15266"},{"issue":"3-4","key":"b29","series-title":"World Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"634","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2013.11.012","article-title":"Comparison of symptomatic cerebral spinal fluid leak between patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open lumbar foraminotomy, discectomy, or laminectomy","volume":"81","author":"Wong AP","year":"2014","unstructured":"Wong AP, Shih P, Smith TR, Slimack NP, Dahdaleh NS, Aoun SG,  Comparison of symptomatic cerebral spinal fluid leak between patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open lumbar foraminotomy, discectomy, or laminectomy. World Neurosurg. 2014;81(3-4):634\u2013640.10.1016\/j.wneu.2013.11.012"},{"issue":"4","key":"b30","series-title":"CMAJ Open","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E295","DOI":"10.9778\/cmajo.20140048","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"2","author":"Evaniew N","year":"2014","unstructured":"Evaniew N, Khan M, Drew B, Kwok D, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Open. 2014;2(4):E295\u2013E305.10.9778\/cmajo.2014004825485257"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/36\/5\/article-p753.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/36\/5\/article-p753.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/36\/5\/article-p753.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,28]],"date-time":"2025-06-28T00:56:27Z","timestamp":1751072187000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/36\/5\/article-p753.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,1]]},"references-count":30,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2021.10.spine211128","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,1]]}}}