- Letter to the Editor
- Open Access
Letter to the editor regarding “Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis”
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 14, Article number: 164 (2019)
To the editor,
The meta-analysis by Li et al.  published in the journal evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minimally invasive versus open approaches to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). No known meta-analysis on this topic has included only results from RCTs, and therefore, this would represent the highest level of evidence available. Yet upon review of this article, there are serious methodological issues that nullify the conclusions.
The authors state that 7 RCTs were included in this review. Yet only 2 of the 7 studies were actually RCTs—the studies of Serban et al.  and Wang et al.  The remaining 5 studies utilized prospective or retrospective nonrandomized comparisons [4,5,6,7,8]. Among the nonrandomized studies that were incorrectly included, Table 1 includes samples of text that clearly identifies each as a nonrandomized study. This is especially concerning since the authors reported that duplicate verification of study eligibility was performed. Further, in Figs. 2 and 3 (Li et al. ) in their meta-analysis, they state that 5 of 7 studies had low risk of bias as it relates to random sequence generation. Clearly, the authors have made egregious errors in the classification of the included studies.
In Fig. 5 (Li et al. ) of their meta-analysis, another major error presents itself. It is noted in the forest plot that hospital stay was 2.2 days longer with minimally invasive TLIF in the Serban study . Yet, hospital stay was actually 2.2 days shorter with minimally invasive TLIF in this study. This additional error fundamentally impacts the meta-analysis results since reporting of correct data would have led to a different conclusion—that minimally invasive TLIF is associated with a shorter hospital stay relative to open TLIF.
Given the major and obvious flaws in study selection and data analysis and consequently, the potential risk of other less obvious deficiencies, the authors and editors are encouraged to retract this article.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Li A, Li X, Zhong Y. Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):241.
Serban D, Calina N, Tender G. Standard versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized study. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7236970.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(10):1780–4.
Singh K, Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Fineberg SJ, Oglesby M, Pelton MA, Andersson GB, Isayeva D, Jegier BJ, Phillips FM. A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1694–701.
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):464–72.
Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB. Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(11):2265–70.
Seng C, Siddiqui MA, Wong KP, Zhang K, Yeo W, Tan SB, Yue WM. Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):2049–55.
Wang J, Zhou Y, Feng Zhang Z, Qing Li C, Jie Zheng W, Liu J. Comparison of the clinical outcome in overweight or obese patients after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):202–6.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, L.E. Letter to the editor regarding “Is minimally invasive superior than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis”. J Orthop Surg Res 14, 164 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1196-8