{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,11]],"date-time":"2026-04-11T08:52:52Z","timestamp":1775897572653,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":44,"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":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Object<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has the potential advantage of minimizing soft-tissue damage and reducing recovery time compared to open procedures. A steep learning curve has been described for the technique. The aim of the present study was to define the learning curve that describes the progress of a single surgeon performing the MI-TLIF.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>One hundred fifty consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disease who underwent 1- or 2-level MI-TLIF were included in the study. Operative time, corrected operative time per level, and complications were analyzed. The learning curve was assessed using a negative exponential curve-fit regression analysis.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      One hundred ten patients underwent 1-level and 18 patients underwent 2-level MI-TLIF; the remaining 22 underwent a single-level procedure plus an ancillary procedure (decompression at adjacent level, vertebral augmentation through fenestrated pedicle screws, interspinous device at adjacent level). Negative exponential curves appropriately described the relationship between operative time and experience for 1-level surgery and after correction of operative time per level (R\n                      <jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>\n                      = 0.65 and 0.57). The median operative time was 140 minutes (interquartile range 120\u2013173 minutes), and a 50% learning milestone was achieved at Case 12; a 90% learning milestone was achieved at Case 39. No patient required transfusion in the perioperative period. The overall complication rate was 12.67% and the most frequent complication was a dural tear (5.32%). Before the 50% and 90% learning milestones, the complication rates were 33% and 20.51%, respectively.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The MI-TLIF is a reliable and effective option for lumbar arthrodesis. According to the present study, 90% of the learning curve can be achieved at around the 40th case.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.5.focus13157","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,8,1]],"date-time":"2013-08-01T09:59:17Z","timestamp":1375351157000},"page":"E7","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":83,"title":["Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"35","author":[{"given":"Pedro S.","family":"Silva","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Paulo","family":"Pereira","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Pedro","family":"Monteiro","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Pedro A.","family":"Silva","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Rui","family":"Vaz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-0350007","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":"b2-0350007","series-title":"Surg Technol Int","first-page":"281","article-title":"Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques","volume":"17","author":"Bagan","year":"2008"},{"key":"b3-0350007","series-title":"Am J Cardiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"587","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9149(99)80622-5","article-title":"The learning curve for radiofrequency ablation of tachyarrhythmias in pediatric patients","volume":"75","author":"Danford","year":"1995"},{"key":"b4-0350007","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":"b5-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"316","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-1191-6","article-title":"Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach","volume":"19","author":"Fan","year":"2010"},{"issue":"15 Suppl","key":"b6-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S26","DOI":"10.1097\/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E","article-title":"Minimally invasive lumbar fusion","volume":"28","author":"Foley","year":"2003"},{"issue":"26 Suppl","key":"b7-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S294","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes","volume":"35","author":"Karikari","year":"2010"},{"issue":"26 Suppl","key":"b8-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S281","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182022d32","article-title":"Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery","volume":"35","author":"Kim","year":"2010"},{"key":"b9-0350007","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","article-title":"Instrumented minimally invasive spinal-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF); minimum 5-years follow-up with clinical and radiologic outcomes","author":"Kim","year":"2012"},{"key":"b10-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1548","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318252d44b","article-title":"Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases","volume":"37","author":"Lee","year":"2012"},{"key":"b11-0350007","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"771","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.1.SPINE10571","article-title":"Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior\/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. Clinical article","volume":"14","author":"McGirt","year":"2011"},{"key":"b12-0350007","series-title":"Minim Invasive Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0030-1247560","article-title":"Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"53","author":"Ntoukas","year":"2010"},{"key":"b13-0350007","series-title":"Minim Invasive Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0030-1269904","article-title":"Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis","volume":"54","author":"Parker","year":"2011"},{"key":"b14-0350007","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":"b15-0350007","series-title":"Health Technol Assess","first-page":"1","article-title":"Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies","volume":"5","author":"Ramsay","year":"2001"},{"key":"b16-0350007","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"},{"key":"b17-0350007","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":"b18-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence","author":"Tian","year":"2013"},{"key":"b19-0350007","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":"b20-0350007","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":"b21-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"623","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1578-4","article-title":"Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine","volume":"20","author":"Wang","year":"2011"},{"key":"b22-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2273","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181cd42cc","article-title":"Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates","volume":"35","author":"Wu","year":"2010"},{"key":"b1-0350007","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":"b2-0350007","series-title":"Surg Technol Int","first-page":"281","article-title":"Perioperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS): comparison of MIS and open interbody fusion techniques","volume":"17","author":"Bagan","year":"2008"},{"key":"b3-0350007","series-title":"Am J Cardiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"587","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9149(99)80622-5","article-title":"The learning curve for radiofrequency ablation of tachyarrhythmias in pediatric patients","volume":"75","author":"Danford","year":"1995"},{"key":"b4-0350007","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":"b5-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"316","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-1191-6","article-title":"Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach","volume":"19","author":"Fan","year":"2010"},{"issue":"15 Suppl","key":"b6-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S26","DOI":"10.1097\/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E","article-title":"Minimally invasive lumbar fusion","volume":"28","author":"Foley","year":"2003"},{"issue":"26 Suppl","key":"b7-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S294","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes","volume":"35","author":"Karikari","year":"2010"},{"issue":"26 Suppl","key":"b8-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S281","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3182022d32","article-title":"Scientific basis of minimally invasive spine surgery: prevention of multifidus muscle injury during posterior lumbar surgery","volume":"35","author":"Kim","year":"2010"},{"key":"b9-0350007","series-title":"J Spinal Disord Tech","article-title":"Instrumented minimally invasive spinal-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF); minimum 5-years follow-up with clinical and radiologic outcomes","author":"Kim","year":"2012"},{"key":"b10-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1548","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e318252d44b","article-title":"Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases","volume":"37","author":"Lee","year":"2012"},{"key":"b11-0350007","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"771","DOI":"10.3171\/2011.1.SPINE10571","article-title":"Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior\/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. Clinical article","volume":"14","author":"McGirt","year":"2011"},{"key":"b12-0350007","series-title":"Minim Invasive Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0030-1247560","article-title":"Minimally invasive approach versus traditional open approach for one level posterior lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"53","author":"Ntoukas","year":"2010"},{"key":"b13-0350007","series-title":"Minim Invasive Neurosurg","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0030-1269904","article-title":"Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis","volume":"54","author":"Parker","year":"2011"},{"key":"b14-0350007","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":"b15-0350007","series-title":"Health Technol Assess","first-page":"1","article-title":"Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies","volume":"5","author":"Ramsay","year":"2001"},{"key":"b16-0350007","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"},{"key":"b17-0350007","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":"b18-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis based on the current evidence","author":"Tian","year":"2013"},{"key":"b19-0350007","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":"b20-0350007","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":"b21-0350007","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"623","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-010-1578-4","article-title":"Minimally invasive or open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion as revision surgery for patients previously treated by open discectomy and decompression of the lumbar spine","volume":"20","author":"Wang","year":"2011"},{"key":"b22-0350007","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2273","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181cd42cc","article-title":"Minimal access versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis of fusion rates","volume":"35","author":"Wu","year":"2010"}],"container-title":["Neurosurgical Focus"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE7.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE7.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE7.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,11]],"date-time":"2026-04-11T08:02:10Z","timestamp":1775894530000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/neurosurg-focus\/35\/2\/article-pE7.xml"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013,8]]},"references-count":44,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2013.5.focus13157","relation":{},"ISSN":["1092-0684"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1092-0684","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013,8]]}}}