Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27433432›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2016

Choice of Approach Does Not Affect Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes: A Comparative Cohort of Patients Having Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Patients Having Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion at 24 Months.

Gregory M Malham, Rhiannon M Parker, Carl M Blecher, Fiona Y Chow, Kevin A Seex

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review.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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature.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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. One-year CT evaluation of fusion in adult spinal deformity using supplemental anterior lumbar interbody fusion.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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Single-Position Anterior Column Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gregory M MalhamNeuroscience Institute, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rhiannon M ParkerResearch Department, Greg Malham Neurosurgeon, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Carl M BlecherRadiology Department, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Fiona Y ChowInternal Medicine Institute, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kevin A SeexNeurosurgery Department, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes between comparative cohorts of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

methodsNinety consecutive patients were treated by a single surgeon with either ALIF (n = 50) or LLIF (n = 40). Inclusion criteria were patients age 45 to 70 years with degenerative disk disease or grade 1 to 2 spondylolisthesis and single-level pathology from L1 to S1. Patient-reported outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life (Short Form 36 physical component score [PCS] and mental component scores [MCS]). Assessment of fusion and measurement of lordosis and posterior disk height were performed on computed tomography scans.

resultsAt 24 months, patients having ALIF had significant improvements in back (64%) and leg (65%) pain and ODI (60%), PCS (44%), and MCS (26%; p < 0.05) scores. Patients having LLIF had significant improvements in back (56%) and leg (57%) pain and ODI (52%), PCS (48%), and MCS (12%; p < 0.05) scores. Fourteen complications occurred in the ALIF group, and in the LLIF group, there were 17 complications (p > 0.05). The fusion rate was 100% for ALIF and 95% for LLIF (p = 0.1948). ALIF added ∼6 degrees of lordosis and 3 mm of height, primarily measured at L5-S1, and LLIF added ∼3 degrees of lordosis and 2 mm of height between L1 to L5. Mean follow-up was 34.1 months.

conclusionsIn comparative cohorts of patients having ALIF and patients having LLIF at 24 months postoperatively, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, or fusion rates.

Indexed as

anteriorcomparisoncomplicationsfusionlaterallordosis

Identifiers

PMID27433432
PMCPMC4947396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.