ArticleAsian spine journal2022
Clinical and Radiographic Comparisons among Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison with Three-Way Matching.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Fusion rate and complications of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in 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
- Lateral lumbar interbody fusion to address pseudarthrosis after prior posterior spinal instrumentation.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
- Article
- Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Outcomes Comparison Between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Sagittal Alignment Correction in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion with Unilateral vs. Bilateral Facetectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Fully Navigated Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Detailed Technical Report and Description of 15 Cases.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Lumbar total disk replacement versus microsurgical lumbar discectomy in treatment of radicular and back pain in railway workers: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- A novel surgical approach using the "lateral corridor" for minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a clinical series and technical note.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
- The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Technique in Spine Surgery: Meta-Analysis of 1409 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Predictors of Vertebral Endplate Fractures after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Article
- An effectiveness and economic analyses of tricalcium phosphate combined with iliac bone graft versus RhBMP-2 in single-level XLIF surgery in Thailand.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Review
- Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion.Asian spine journal · 2022Article
- Recent Updates on Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications.Asian spine journal · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes among minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF), and oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) techniques. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: To date, there are many reports comparing outcomes between MIS-TLIF and XLIF, MIS-TLIF and OLIF, or XLIF and OLIF procedures. However, there are no previous studies comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes among all these three techniques.
methodsData from patients who underwent minimally invasive (MI) fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases at L4-L5 level was analyzed. Thirty patients each from MIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF groups were recruited for propensity score matching. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and legs and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes were also compared. The fusion rate was evaluated at 1 year after surgeries.
resultsThe clinical outcomes were significantly improved in all groups. The disk height was significantly restored in all groups postoperatively, which was significantly more improved in XLIF and OLIF than MIS-TLIF group (p<0.001). The axial canal area was significantly increased more in MIS-TLIF versus XLIF and OLIF (p<0.001). The correction of lumbar lordotic angle and segmental sagittal angle were similar among these techniques. OLIF and XLIF groups showed less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than MIS-TLIF group (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in fusion rate among all groups.
conclusionsMIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF facilitated safe and effective MI procedures for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. XLIF and OLIF can achieve clinical outcomes equivalent to MIS-TLIF by indirect decompression. XLIF and OLIF showed less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and better disk and foraminal height restorations. In single-level L4-5, the restoration of sagittal alignment was similar between these three techniques.
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.