SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2019
Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Term Clinical and Imaging Results of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Incidence of major and minor vascular injuries during lateral access lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a retrospective comparative study and systematic literature review.Neurosurgical review · 2022Pooled it
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Safety of Adding Bevacizumab to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Ambispective study of fusion and subsidence in degenerated L4-5/L5-S1 discs treated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior lumbar interbody fusion using 3D-printed titanium open arch cages.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of acute postoperative pain and opioid use between lateral transpsoas, anterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- An optimal disc height changes for successful indirect decompression with OLIF.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Review of Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Should a Narrow Corridor Be a Contraindication for Performing Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure or Not?Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of the effects between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: technique modification with resultant resource usage optimisation.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Factors affecting successful immediate indirect decompression in oblique lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Article
- Predictors of Vertebral Endplate Fractures after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Review
- Nationwide Survey of the Surgical Complications Associated with Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in 2015-2020.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
- Computational comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with various supplementary fixation systems: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease.
methodsWe conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI).
results56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF.
conclusionsThe two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.
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.