ArticleGlobal spine journal2021
Safety of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.
Article in Global spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stand-alone versus supplemented ALIF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pseudarthrosis and reoperation rates.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases (TLIF vs. Other Surgical Techniques): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Prediction of primary admission total charges following lumbar disc arthroplasty utilizing machine learning.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Spinal fusion for single-level SPECT/CT positive lumbar degenerative disc disease: the SPINUS I study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Observational
- Deformity Correction with Interbody Fusion Using Lateral versus Posterior Approach in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Observational Meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Risk Factors for 30-day Unplanned Readmission following Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Characteristics of interbody bone graft fusion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion according to intervertebral space division.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Predictors of Complications and Unfavorable Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery Treatment in Elderly Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spine Pathologies (Case Series).Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Lordotic restoration: A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion expandable and static cages at the lumbosacral junction.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA network meta-analysis.
objectivesLumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is an important issue in aging population, for which lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a feasible management in cases refractory to conservative therapy. There are various techniques available to perform LIF, including posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and anterior (ALIF) approaches. However, the comparative safety profile of these procedures remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate comparative adverse events of the LIF procedures in patients with LDDD.
methodsWe searched 5 databases for relevant prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. After quality assessments, we extracted neural, spinal, vascular, and wound events for conducting contrast-based network meta-analysis. Results were reported in risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
resultsWe identified 14 studies involving 921 participants with LDDD. Pooled result showed that open PLIF (OPLIF) leads to significantly higher overall adverse event rate than does open TLIF (OTLIF; RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.21-9.73). OTLIF confers the highest SUCRA in neural (78.7) and spinal (80.8) event rates. Minimally invasive TLIF has the highest SUCRA in vascular event (84.2), and minimally invasive PLIF has the highest SUCRA in wound event (88.1). No inconsistency or publication bias was detected in the results.
conclusionsBased on our results, perhaps OPLIF should be avoided in the management of LDDD due to the inferiority of overall complications. Specifically, TLIF seems to have the safest profile in terms of neural, spinal, and vascular events. Nevertheless, shared decision making is still mandatory when choosing the proper LIF procedure for patients with LDDD in clinical practice.
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.