ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07127380MID-MISUpdated Apr 15, 2026

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Complications Rate and Treatment Costs of Mini-TLIF and MIDLIF in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain

An interventional study of Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF) and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF) in Lower Back Pain Chronic, Lumbar Degenerative Disease and Lumbar Disc Degeneration, sponsored by Copernicus Memorial Hospital. Recruiting at 1 site in Poland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-15.

Sponsored by Copernicus Memorial Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 6 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jan 2025, registered Aug 2025).
  • Started Jan 2025; still recruiting 1 year 9 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Background

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is the leading cause of lower back pain and disability, which prevalence increasing with age. When conservative treatment fails, surgical methods of spinal fusion are employed. Minimally invasive techniques, including minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF), have well-documented advantages over traditional open transforaminal interbody fusion (open-TLIF). However, data comparing these two minimally invasive methods in treating DDD are minimal and sometimes contradictory. I am running a few minutes late; my previous meeting is running over.

Methods This is a prospective, randomized, partially blinded, two-arm trial aiming to compare the outcomes, complications, and treatment costs of MIS-TLIF and MIDLIF in patients with discogenic low back pain. A total of 100 adult patients with lumbosacral spine pain and radicular symptoms, unresponsive to conservative treatment for over one year, will be enrolled. Patients will be randomized (1:1) into two arms: MIS-TLIF (control, n=50) and MIDLIF (intervention, n=50), with a 12-month follow-up. Inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years and discopathy at one or two levels requiring interbody stabilization. Exclusion criteria include multilevel pathology, spinal deformities, and pain causes other than degenerative disease. Primary endpoints assess pain (VAS, NRS scales), disability (COMI, ODI questionnaires), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. Secondary endpoints include complication rates (nerve root damage, infections), costs (hospitalization, implants), length of hospital stay, procedure duration, blood loss, morphometric parameters (intervertebral space height), and adjacent segment disease based on imaging studies (MRI, CT, X-ray). Data analysis uses parametric/non-parametric tests (e.g., t-test, Mann-Whitney) in the R software. The trial adheres to the Helsinki Declaration, with ethics approval (no. 112/2024).

Discussion Data on the comparison of MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF in treating DDD are minimal and inconsistent. Some reports have advantaged MIDLIF in shorter operative time, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and reduced hospital stays, while others favor MIS-TLIF. This trial addresses these gaps by providing high-quality evidence on clinical superiority, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes compering MIDLIF and MIS-TLIF. There is a high need for a high-quality, prospective study to examine this problem.

02

Conditions studied

  • Lower Back Pain Chronic
  • Lumbar Degenerative Disease
  • Lumbar Disc Degeneration
  • Degenerative Disc Disease(DDD)

Keywords

  • Degenerative Disc Disease
  • Lower Back Pain
  • Lumbar Disc Degeneration
  • Discogenic Pain
  • MIS-TLIF
  • MIDLIF
  • mini-TLIF
  • Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
  • Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion
  • Spinal stabilization
  • Spinal fusion
03

In context

Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

462 studies on the registry are indexed under Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; 100 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 100 is above the median of 60 across 256 interventional studies indexed under Intervertebral Disc Degeneration.

Browse Intervertebral Disc Degeneration studies →

Lead sponsor

Copernicus Memorial Hospital is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Discogenic lower lumbar-sacral pain lasting longer than one year
  • Failure of conservative treatment, including rehabilitation and pain management
  • Lumbar discopathy qualified for interbody fusion and pedicle screw stabilization
  • of the patient for the study and proposed treatment

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • to surgery under general anesthesia
  • Age \< 18 years
  • Pregnancy, breastfeeding
  • Lack of to participate in the study
  • Lumbar-sac discopathy requiring surgical treatment at more than two levels
  • Spinal deformities: adult idiopathic scoliosis, degenerative scoliosis, deformity due to spinal , inflammatory spinal disease, post-traumatic, or associated with congenital anomalies
  • Lower lumbar-sacral pain syndrome, which, in the investigator's opinion, has an etiology other than degenerative spine disease (e.g., cancer-related pain, ankylosing spondylitis)
  • Spinal oncology disease
  • True and degenerative spondylolisthesis
  • Contraindications to performing MRI of the lumbar-sacral spine
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

Cancer (malignancy)

Malignancy means cancer. Criteria about another or earlier malignancy ask whether you have had a different cancer, usually within a set number of years.

Some are commonly allowed, such as treated skin cancers other than melanoma and early cancers removed completely — check the exceptions this study lists.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
100 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)

    Lumbar fusion is obatained by Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

    Procedure: Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)

  • Experimental
    Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF)

    Lumbar fusion is obtained by Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion

    Procedure: Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF)

Interventions

  • ProcedureMidline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF)

    Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF) is a procedure utilizes a medial approach to the spine, involving the retraction of the segmental back muscles to expose the lamine and articular processes. Screw placement is medialized, with entry to a point along the pars intercularis or joint surface. It places the screw through potentially more cortical and stronger bone. Decompression is achieved by resecting the inferior articular process and lamina marginalis, followed by a discectomy. Subsequently, a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is performed to place an interbody cage and promote fusion.

  • ProcedureMinimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF)

    Minimally invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (mini-TLIF) is a procedure that employs a percutaneous approach for pedicle screw placement through the pedicles. Decompression is performed using a lateral approach, with 2-3 cm lateral to the ipsilateral borders. This is followed by resection of the inferior articular process and removal of the ligamentum flavum, facilitating discectomy. An interbody cage is then inserted to achieve fusion.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

    The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a measurement tool designed to quantify subjective pain intensity. It consists of a straight horizontal line, typically 10 cm (100 mm) long, with two endpoints anchored by descriptive labels ("no pain" on the left and "worst imaginable pain" on the right). Respondents mark a point on the line that best represents their perception, and the score is determined by measuring the distance in millimeters from the left endpoint to the mark, yielding a continuous score from 0 to 100.

    Time frame: 1 day before randomization, up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  2. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)

    The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is a unidimensional, self-reported psychometric tool primarily used to quantify the intensity of pain on a numerical scale. It typically consists of an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 represents "no pain" (or no symptom) and 10 represents "worst possible pain" (or maximum intensity imaginable). Respondents verbally or in writing select a whole number that best reflects their current experience, making it a discrete rather than continuous measure.

    Time frame: 1 day before randomization, up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  3. Core Outcome Measures Index

    The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a multidimensional, patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess the key domains affected by spinal disorders, particularly low back pain and related conditions. It consists of a brief questionnaire (typically 7-8 items) that evaluates pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, and disability (both social and work-related). Responses are scored on a 0-10 scale, where higher scores indicate worse outcomes; the overall COMI score is the average of the domain scores, providing a single summary index.

    Time frame: 1 day before randomization, up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  4. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)

    The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a self-reported questionnaire designed to quantify the level of functional disability associated with low back pain and related spinal conditions. It consists of 10 sections, each addressing a specific aspect of daily life impacted by pain: pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life (optional in some versions), social life, and traveling. Each section has 6 statements scored from 0 (no limitation) to 5 (maximum limitation), with the total score expressed as a percentage (0-100%), where higher scores indicate greater disability. Common interpretations include 0-20% (minimal disability), 21-40% (moderate), 41-60% (severe), 61-80% (crippled), and 81-100% (bed-bound or exaggerating symptoms).

    Time frame: 1 day before randomization, up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  5. European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels

    The European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) is a standardized, self-reported instrument developed by the EuroQol Group to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across a wide range of populations and conditions. It comprises two main components: a descriptive system with five health dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression), each rated on five levels of severity.

    Time frame: 1 day before randomization, up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

Secondary outcomes

  1. Complication Rates and Types

    Evaluation of the frequency and nature of complications between groups, including nerve root damage, cerebrospinal fluid leak, instrumentation failure, postoperative wound infection, and other adverse events.

    Time frame: Up to 24 hours after randomization, 2 days after randomization, 1 month after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 6 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  2. Direct Treatment Costs

    Analysis of direct treatment costs with a breakdown by category, including total hospitalization costs, costs of implants used, costs of medications administered, and costs of the surgical procedure.

    Time frame: 12 months after randomization

  3. Hospitalization Duration

    Measurement of the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital.

    Time frame: 2 days after randomization (day of hospital discharge)

  4. Procedure Duration

    Evaluation of the operating room time (OR time) required for the surgery.

    Time frame: 2 days after randomization

  5. Blood Loss

    Quantification of estimated blood loss (EBL) during the surgical procedure.

    Time frame: 2 days after randomization

  6. Spinal Morphometric Parameters

    Evaluation of intervertebral space height (ISH), foraminal height (FH), radiological evidence of bone fusion, and global and segmental lordosis of the lumbar-sacral spine.

    Time frame: 2 days after randomization, 3 months after randomization, 12 months after randomization

  7. Time to Return to Professional Activity

    Measurement of the duration required for working patients to resume professional activities.

    Time frame: 12 months after randomization

  8. Radiological Assessment of Adjacent Segment Disease

    Evaluation of the occurrence of adjacent segment disease based on MRI of the lumbar-sacral spine.

    Time frame: 12 months after randomization

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Silva PS, Jardim A, Pereira J, Sousa R, Vaz R, Pereira P. Minimally invasive fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and severe lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study between MIDLIF and TLIF. Eur Spine J. 2023 Sep;32(9):3210-3217. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07847-6. Epub 2023 Jul 9. PubMed 37422769 ↗
  • Tippins NP, Foreit AM, Kussow NJ, Milne CM, Narayanan AM, Neely MR, Poplarski JH, Reasoner JT, Ricks K, Alentado VJ, Potts EA, Mobasser JP. Examination of clinical and radiographic outcomes after lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective analysis of TLIF, MidLIF, and MIS-TLIF procedures. J Neurosurg Spine. 2025 May 2;43(1):52-62. doi: 10.3171/2025.1.SPINE241286. Print 2025 Jul 1. PubMed 40315609 ↗
  • Crawford CH 3rd, Owens RK 2nd, Djurasovic M, Gum JL, Dimar JR 2nd, Carreon LY. Minimally-Invasive midline posterior interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screws compares favorably to traditional open transforaminal interbody fusion. Heliyon. 2019 Sep 11;5(9):e02423. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02423. eCollection 2019 Sep. PubMed 31535047 ↗
  • Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011 Feb;54(1):33-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1269904. Epub 2011 Apr 19. PubMed 21506066 ↗
  • Xie L, Wu WJ, Liang Y. Comparison between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Conventional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016 Aug 20;129(16):1969-86. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.187847. PubMed 27503024 ↗
  • Xue J, Song Y, Liu H, Liu L, Li T, Gong Q. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single segmental lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2022;35(3):505-516. doi: 10.3233/BMR-210004. PubMed 34602458 ↗
  • Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara Akinduro O, Clifton W, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Abode-Iyamah KO. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J. 2021 Dec;21(12):2049-2065. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.07.006. Epub 2021 Jul 14. PubMed 34273567 ↗
  • Phani Kiran S, Sudhir G. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021 Sep 8;22:101592. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101592. eCollection 2021 Nov. PubMed 34603954 ↗
  • Zhang X, Zhang Y, Gu Z, Li G. Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease. Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 27;14(1):22154. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-73213-1. PubMed 39333680 ↗
  • Wang YY, Chung YH, Huang CH, Hu MH. Comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and midline lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 May 9;19(1):286. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04764-2. PubMed 38725087 ↗
  • Silva F, Silva PS, Vaz R, Pereira P. Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) with cortical screws: initial experience and learning curve. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Dec;161(12):2415-2420. doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-04079-w. Epub 2019 Oct 24. PubMed 31650331 ↗
  • Dave BR, Marathe N, Mayi S, Degulmadi D, Rai RR, Patil S, Jadav K, Bali SK, Kumar A, Meena U, Parmar V, Amin P, Dave M, Krishnan PA, Krishnan A. Does Conventional Open TLIF cause more Muscle Injury when Compared to Minimally Invasive TLIF?-A Prospective Single Center Analysis. Global Spine J. 2024 Jan;14(1):93-100. doi: 10.1177/21925682221095467. Epub 2022 Apr 20. PubMed 35442112 ↗
  • Modi HN, Shrestha U. Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Parameters in Open TLIF Versus MIS-TLIF in Single- or Double-Level Lumbar Surgeries. Int J Spine Surg. 2021 Oct;15(5):962-970. doi: 10.14444/8126. Epub 2021 Sep 22. PubMed 34551928 ↗
  • Tan JH, Liu G, Ng R, Kumar N, Wong HK, Liu G. Is MIS-TLIF superior to open TLIF in obese patients?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1877-1886. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5630-0. Epub 2018 Jun 1. PubMed 29858673 ↗
  • Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05. PubMed 27683674 ↗
  • Mohd Isa IL, Teoh SL, Mohd Nor NH, Mokhtar SA. Discogenic Low Back Pain: Anatomy, Pathophysiology and Treatments of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Dec 22;24(1):208. doi: 10.3390/ijms24010208. PubMed 36613651 ↗
  • Wu PH, Kim HS, Jang IT. Intervertebral Disc Diseases PART 2: A Review of the Current Diagnostic and Treatment Strategies for Intervertebral Disc Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 20;21(6):2135. doi: 10.3390/ijms21062135. PubMed 32244936 ↗
  • Chou R. Low Back Pain. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Aug;174(8):ITC113-ITC128. doi: 10.7326/AITC202108170. Epub 2021 Aug 10. PubMed 34370518 ↗
  • Kowal A, Krystkiewicz-Orzechowska M, Tosik M, Krystkiewicz K. A randomised controlled, prospective trial protocol comparing MID-MIS approaches for the treatment of discogenic low back pain: clinical outcomes, complication rates, and treatment costs in MIDLIF vs. MIS-TLIF. BMC Surg. 2026 Apr 28;26(1):411. doi: 10.1186/s12893-026-03779-2. PubMed 42050613 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jan 2028, 36 months after the start.

Of 40 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Intervertebral Disc Degeneration, half reached primary completion within 44 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 63. This study's planned 36 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 85 studies reached it within 50 months; a quarter within 27 and three quarters within 72.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 11, 2025
First posted
Aug 17, 2025
StartActual
Jan 19, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Jan 19, 2028
CompletionEst.
Jan 31, 2028
Last update
Apr 15, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 15, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07127380
Lead sponsor
Copernicus Memorial Hospital
Responsible party
Kamil Krystkiewicz (MD, PhD, neurosurgeon, Copernicus Memorial Hospital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 17, 2025
Start date
Jan 19, 2025
Primary completion
Jan 19, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 31, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 15, 2026

Study contacts

Aleksander Kowal, MD
Contact
aleksanderwkowal@gmail.com
+48426895341
Kamil Krystkiewicz, MD, PhD
Contact
kamil.krystkiewicz@gmail.com
+48426895341

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion