Corrigendum to ‘Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review’ [The Spine Journal 19/5 (2019) 951-958]

The authors regret that the above article was published with the incorrect versions of Figure 1 and Table 1.Table 1.Studies analyzing changes in lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL) after minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusionAuthorYearDesignGroupingSubjectsFULL PreLL PostLL DIFFSL PreSL PostSL DIFFStudies reporting both Lumbar Lordosis and Segmental LordosisLee292008RR273943.1°44.6°1.5°11.9°13.9°2.0°Kim272009RR463051.2°52.6°1.4°15.8°18.3°2.5°Kim282011RR563228.4°35.8°7.4°14.7°15.9°1.2°Min322013RR692535.4°42.1°6.6°11.6°14.5°2.9°Min332014RRUnilateral Approach202529.9°35.8°6.0°15.1°17.7°2.6°2014RRBilateral Approach102341.3°44.8°3.5°17.9°18.7°0.8°Isaacs192016RCT262456.9°59.5°2.6°8.3°8.6°0.3°Shen202016RCTUnilateral Screws312745.3°38.5°-6.8°20.5°21.7°1.2°2016RCTBilateral Screws342746.9°40.8°-6.1°19.3°20.8°1.5°Hawasli262017RRStatic Cage161554.3°58.7°4.4°5.8°8.1°2.3°2017RRExpandable Cage28752.2°56.9°4.7°5.8°11.0°5.2°Lv312017RR503635.1°41.2°6.1°15.2°20.1°4.9°Studies reporting only Lumbar LordosisBarbagallo212014CS83056.9°66.5°9.6°Lee302016RR271234.2°39.7°5.5°Li232017CS955231.6°46.3°14.7°Studies reporting only Segmental LordosisDahdaleh182013RCTUnilateral Screws16119.3°11.4°2.1°2013RCTBilateral Screws201213.7°14.1°0.4°Lindley252014CSSteerable Cage1565.3°13.0°7.7°2014CSBullet Cage1074.8°4.8°0.0°Kim222016CS50189.1°9.2°0.1°Studies reporting Differences in Lumbar Lordosis and Segmental LordosisLim242013CS19322.1°0.7°Weighted Means:39.6°45.0°5.2°12.7°14.9°2.1°FU, Follow-up (months); LL, Lumbar lordosis; SL, Segmental lordosis; Pre, Preoperative; Post, Postoperative; DIFF, Difference (Post-Pre); RR, Retrospective review; RCT, Randomized controlled trial; CS, Case series Open table in a new tab FU, Follow-up (months); LL, Lumbar lordosis; SL, Segmental lordosis; Pre, Preoperative; Post, Postoperative; DIFF, Difference (Post-Pre); RR, Retrospective review; RCT, Randomized controlled trial; CS, Case series The previously published article has 6 tables and 3 figures, none of which are the correct ones for the study. The correct versions are below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic reviewThe Spine JournalVol. 19Issue 5PreviewTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions and spinal deformity. The TLIF procedure can be performed open or using minimally invasive techniques. While several studies have found that minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) has advantages over open TLIF procedures with less blood loss, postoperative pain and hospital length of stay, opponents of the minimally invasive technique cite the lack of restoration of lumbar lordosis as a major drawback. Full-Text PDF