SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying potential predictive indicators for reimplantation timing in two-stage revision: a meta-analysis and system review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 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
- The Limited Evidence Base for Multilevel Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Its Consequences for Clinical Conclusions: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Influence of psoas major morphology on clinical outcomes following L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of 191 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of lumbar interbody fusion techniques in adult scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative alignment and disability outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- 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
- Article
- 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
- Cage Obliquity in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion-How Common Is It and What Are the Effects on Fusion Rates, Subsidence, and Sagittal Alignment? A Computed Tomography-Based Analysis.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Is minimally invasive surgery a game changer in spinal surgery?Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Effects of the Severity of Stenosis on Clinical Outcomes of Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting adequate segmental lordosis correction in lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a focus on the discontinuous segment.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 · 2024Article
- Clinical values of oblique lumbar interbody fusion on the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Biomechanical differences between two different shapes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion cages on whether to add posterior internal fixation system: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- The Fate of Pre-Existing L5-S1 Degeneration following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion of L4-L5 and Above.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of the preoperative assessment of the anteroposterior diameters of the spinal canal and dural area on the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Review
- Article
- Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF): we should not compare two procedures that serve different purposes.Neurosurgical review · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.
resultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).
conclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .
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.