ReviewDer Orthopade2015
[Extreme lateral interbody fusion. Indication, surgical technique, outcomes and specific complications].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Comparison of Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lateral Fixation in the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients with Osteopenia or Osteoporosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- L4/5 accessibility for extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a radiological study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is an interbody fusion technique, in which access to the lateral part of the disc is achieved via a strong lateral transpsoatic approach. In general, the technique can be applied between T5 and L5. For lumbar segments, neuromonitoring is mandatory to protect the iliolumbar plexus during the psoas passage.
objectivesIn this article, the results regarding use of the XLIF technique are summarized and compared with other anterior and anterolateral approaches. In addition, current publications regarding indication, technique, complications and clinical/radiological outcome measures are discussed.
methodsThe results of a literature review are presented and discussed.
resultsRegarding the indication and the surgical options for segmental restoration, the XLIF technique is comparable to anterior or anterolateral and open lateral interbody fusion. The minimally invasive XLIF access promises potentially lower morbidity than open procedures and the risk of injury of the iliac vessels is lower than in anterior and anterolateral approaches.
conclusionIncreasing numbers of spine surgeons are using the XLIF method. Current results indicate that XLIF is a safe and reproducible technique for deformities, adjacent level disease, and instability.
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.