Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34140626›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Comparison of outcomes between indirect decompression of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and MIS-TLIF in one single-level lumbar spondylosis.

Shih-Feng Hung, Jen-Chung Liao, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Yun-Da Li, Ping-Yeh Chiu, Ming-Kai Hsieh, Fu-Cheng Kao

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Shih-Feng HungDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Jen-Chung LiaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Tsung-Ting TsaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Yun-Da LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ping-Yeh ChiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ming-Kai HsiehDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No. 5, Fusing St., Gueishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Fu-Cheng KaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Environmental Sciences, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. afogi73@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimal invasive spinal fusion has become popular in the last decade. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a relatively new surgical technique and could avoid back muscle stripping and posterior complex destruction as in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Between December 2016 and September 2018, patients with single level degenerative spondylosis were selected to enroll in this retrospective study. A total of 21 patients that underwent OLIF and 41 patients that received MIS-TLIF were enrolled. OLIF showed significantly less blood loss and shorter surgery time compared to MIS-TLIF (p < 0.05). The improvement in segmental lordosis and coronal balance was significantly more in OLIF group than MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). When comparing with MIS-TLIF, OLIF was significantly better in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale for back pain improvement at post-operative 6 months (p < 0.05). Both OLIF and MIS-TLIF are becoming mainstream procedures for lumbar degenerative-related disease, especially for spondylolisthesis. However, the indirect decompression of OLIF has shown to have less perioperative blood loss and shorter surgery time than that of MIS-TLIF. In addition, OLIF gives superior outcome in restoring segmental lordosis and coronal imbalance. While both OLIF and MIS-TLIF provide optimal clinical outcomes, upon comparison between the two techniques, the indirect decompression of OLIF seems to be a superior option in modern days.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionFemaleHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedSpondylolisthesisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34140626
PMCPMC8211833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.