ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2012
Clinical outcome and fusion rates after the first 30 extreme lateral interbody fusions.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Comparison of Complication Rates Between Lateral Approaches to the Lumbar Spine: K2M RAVINE® Far Lateral System Versus NuVasive XLIF®
Comparison Between Insertion of Bilateral Straight Cages Versus Unilateral Banana Cage in Lumbar Fusion Surgery
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases with or without auxiliary posterior fixation: a meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Establishing a Standardized Clinical Consensus for Reporting Complications Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Guideline
- Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2018Pooled it
- MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Platelet-Rich Fibrin Induces New Bone Formation to Promote Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion of Spine in Rabbits.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Lumbar interbody fusion via anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review for surgeons.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Review
- Analysis of the effect of modified bone grafting in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective comparative cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Is Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Rupture During Posterior Corrective Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity a Phenomenon Unique to When Combined with Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion? -Finite Element Analysis with Comparison to When Combined with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Ligamentotaxis Effect of Lateral Lumber Interbody Fusion and Cage Subsidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- An innovative minimally invasive technique for lumbar adjacent segment disease: a retrospective comparative analysis between extreme-oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy(XOLIF-PELD) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF) revision.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Effect of Supplemental Fixation on Fusion and Subsidence After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Cureus · 2025Article
- Stand-alone extreme lateral interbody fusion (stand-alone XLIF) to treat radicular symptoms in patients with lumbar degenerative scoliosis: A monocentric observational study.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Evolving Paradigms in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Learning Curves in Minimally Invasive Spine Techniques.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of tubular retractors and hook retractors in oblique lumbar interbody fusion at the initial stage of the learning curve.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Safety of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Technique in Spine Surgery: Meta-Analysis of 1409 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Unique Characteristics of New Bone Formation Induced by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
- Article
- Elucidation of the Mechanism of Occasional Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Rupture with Posterior Correction Procedure for Adult Spinal Deformity Using LLIF-Finite Element Analysis of the Impact of the Lordotic Angle of Intervertebral LLIF Cage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) is gaining popularity. Studies examining a surgeon's early experience are rare. We aim to report treatment, complication, clinical, and radiographic outcomes in an early series of patients.
methodsProspective data from the first thirty patients treated with XLIF by a single surgeon was reviewed. Outcome measures included pain, disability, and quality of life assessment. Radiographic assessment of fusion was performed by computed tomography.
resultsAverage follow-up was 11.5 months, operative time was 60 minutes per level and blood loss was 50 mL. Complications were observed: clinical subsidence, cage breakage upon insertion, new postoperative motor deficit and bowel injury. Approach side-effects were radiographic subsidence and anterior thigh sensory changes. Two patients required reoperation; microforaminotomy and pedicle screw fixation respectively. VAS back and leg pain decreased 63% and 56%, respectively. ODI improved 41.2% with 51.3% and 8.1% improvements in PCS and MCS. Complete fusion (last follow-up) was observed in 85%.
conclusionThe XLIF approach provides superior treatment, clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to conventional surgical approaches with lowered complication rates. Mentor supervision for early cases and strict adherence to the surgical technique including neuromonitoring is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.