ArticleNeurospine2021
Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Versus Bilateral Interbody Cages.
Article in Neurospine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of nonunion on patient-related outcomes after single level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A propensity score-matched 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 · 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
- Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Is there a difference in unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy in an open or minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An evaluation of fusion status following lumbar fusion surgery utilizing multi-planar computed tomography.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
- Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Augmented Reality to Improve Surgical Workflow in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion - A Feasibility Study With Case Series.Neurospine · 2022Article
- Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the impact of bilateral versus unilateral interbody cages on outcomes for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) procedures.
methodsA retrospective review for primary, elective, single-level MIS TLIF procedures with bilateral posterior instrumentation from 2008-2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to unilateral or bilateral interbody cage use. Procedures performed without static interbody cages or indicated for trauma, infection, malignancy were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item Short Form health survey physical composite score (SF-12 PCS), PatientReported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF). PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Change in PROs (Δ) was calculated and compared between groups. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using established values from the literature. Achievement rates were compared between groups using logistic regression.
resultsThe study included 151 patients, with 111 unilateral and 40 bilateral cage placements. Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, and insurance status differed between groups (p < 0.050). Prevalence of degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis (both p ≤ 0.002), operative level (p = 0.003), and postoperative length of stay (p = 0.022) significantly differed between groups. The unilateral group had lower 1-year arthrodesis rates (p = 0.035). Preoperative VAS leg (p = 0.017) and SF-12 PCS (p = 0.045) were worse for the unilateral group. ΔPROMIS-PF was greater for the bilateral group at 2 years (p = 0.001). Majority of patients achieved an overall MCID for all PROs, except VAS leg (bilateral group).
conclusionWhile preoperative status and postoperative arthrodesis rates differed, patients achieved an MCID at similar rates regardless of use of unilateral or bilateral cages.
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.