ArticleAsian spine journal2021
Comparison of Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Posterior Fixation in Lateral Position and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Pooled it
- Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 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
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Shows a Lower Incidence of Radiologic Adjacent Segment Pathology Than Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Comparison of midterm outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral vertebral body screw fixation for single level spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Outcomes Comparison Between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Current status of indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2025Review
- Can we predict post-surgical improvement in functional stooping in lumbar spinal stenosis? Insights from oblique lumbar interbody fusion outcomes and radiologic predictors.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Early Postoperative Pain after Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Spine surgery and related research · 2024Article
- Effects of the Severity of Stenosis on Clinical Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- The Fate of Pre-Existing L5-S1 Degeneration following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion of L4-L5 and Above.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Is Indirect Decompression and Fusion More Effective than Direct Decompression and Fusion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability? A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2023Review
- Computed Tomography Evaluation of Percutaneous Pedicle Screws Inserted during Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Long-term Follow-up Results of Screw Violation.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of Outcomes of Multi-Level Anterior, Oblique, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery : Impact on Global Sagittal Alignment.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023Article
- Recent Updates on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
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
STUDY
designSingle-center retrospective study. PURPOSE: To compare the physical function and quality of life (QOL) parameters of two minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures: oblique lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous posterior fixation in lateral position (OLIF-LPF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: To date, many options for the surgical treatment of lumbar DS and reports have described the effectiveness of minimally invasive lateral access surgery and MIS-TLIF. However, there is still a paucity of comparative data regarding the physical function and QOL outcomes of OLIF and MIS-TLIF.
methodsEighty-six patients were enrolled in this study (group O: OLIF-LPF, n=38; group T: MIS-TLIF, n=48). We evaluated the operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative laboratory data, preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters, overall functional outcome with the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness.
resultsNo statistical differences in operation time, EBL, and C-reactive protein level, 5 days postoperatively, between groups O and T. With respect to radiological outcome, preoperative and postoperative disc height change was significantly greater in group O than in group T (3.8 vs. 1.8 mm, p<0.05). Both groups showed postoperative improvements in the clinical outcome scores of all JOABPEQ domains, but the effectiveness rate increase in the psychological domain was significantly higher in group O than in group T (47.1% vs. 14.6%, p<0.05). No differences in the preoperative and postoperative VAS score change were noted between the two groups in any of the items.
conclusionsThe changes in physical function and QOL parameters after OLIF-LPF and MIS-TLIF were almost equivalent; however, OLIF-LPF had significant superiority in the psychological domain.
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.