ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion.
Article 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical risk factors associated with cage migration after posterior approaches for lumbar interbody fusion: a 10-year systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2025Pooled it
- Enhanced Early Stabilization and Improved Clinical Outcomes by Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Contralateral Facet Fusion Compared With Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral cage placement in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- The Limited Evidence Base for Multilevel Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Its Consequences for Clinical Conclusions: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Adverse Impact of Smoking on Spine Fusion and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Residual motion of different posterior instrumentation and interbody fusion constructs.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 · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the original technique involves inserting two cages bilaterally, there could be situations that only allow for insertion of one cage unilaterally. However, only a few studies have compared the outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) between unilaterally and bilaterally inserted cages.
methodsAmong 206 eligible patients who underwent 1- or 2-level PLIF, 78 patients were 1:3 cohort-matched by age, sex, and operation level (group U, 19 patients with unilateral cages; and group B, 57 patients with bilateral cages). Fusion status was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans at postoperative 1 year. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. Radiological and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis were also analyzed by multivariate analysis.
resultsThe demographic data were not significantly different between the two groups. However, previous laminectomy, asymmetric disc collapse, and fusion at L5-S1 level were more frequently found in group U (P = 0.003, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, pseudarthrosis was more frequently observed in group U (36.8%) than in group B (7.0%) (P = 0.004). Back pain VAS was higher in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.033). Lower general activity function of EQ-5D was observed in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.035). Older age (P = 0.028), unilateral cage (P = 0.007), and higher bone mineral density (P = 0.033) were positively correlated with pseudarthrosis.
conclusionsUnilaterally inserted cage might be a possible risk factor for pseudarthrosis when performing PLIF, which could be related with the difficult working conditions such as scars due to previous laminectomy or asymmetric disc collapse. Furthermore, suboptimal clinical outcomes are expected following PLIF with unilateral cage insertion at postoperative 1 year regardless of similar clinical outcomes at postoperative 2 year. Therefore, caution is advised when inserting cages unilaterally, especially under above-mentioned conditions in terms of its possible relationship with symptomatic pseudarthrosis.
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.