ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Biomechanical effects of an oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior augmentation: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Changing rod stiffness to moderate stress of adjacent disc in oblique lumbar interbody fusion - a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Microscopic and Biomechanical Analysis of PEEK Interspinous Spacers for Spinal Fusion Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of oblique lateral interbody fusion with various fixation methods for degenerative lumbar scoliosis: a finite element analysis considering different bone densities.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: technique modification with resultant resource usage optimisation.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Experimental Analysis of Stress Shielding Effects in Screw Spacers Placed in Porcine Spinal Tissue.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
- Biomechanical Analysis of Double-Level Oblique Lumbar Fusion with Different Types of Fixation: A Finite Element-Based Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Stand-Alone Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) after Previous Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes and Comparison with Posterior Revision Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Biomechanical stability of oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with four types of internal fixations: finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Biomechanical study of two-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different types of lateral instrumentation: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical stability of OLIF, OLIF including posterior pedicle screw and rod (PSR), and OLIF including cortical screw and rod (CSR) instrumentation through finite element analysis.
methodsA complete L2-L5 finite element model of the lumbar spine was constructed. Surgical models of OLIF, such as stand-alone, OLIF combined with PSR, and OLIF combined with CSR were created in the L3-L4 surgical segments. Range of motion (ROM), end plate stress, and internal fixation peak stress were compared between different models under the same loading conditions.
resultsCompared to the intact model, ROM was reduced in the OLIF model under all loading conditions. The surgical models in order of increasing ROM were PSR, CSR, and stand-alone; however, the difference in ROM between BPS and CSR was less than 0.4° and was not significant under any loading conditions. The stand-alone model had the highest stress on the superior L4 vertebral body endplate under all loading conditions, whereas the end plate stress was relatively low in the BPS and CSR models. The CSR model had the highest internal fixation stress, concentrated primarily at the end of the screw.
conclusionsOLIF alone significantly reduces ROM but does not provide sufficient stability. Addition of posterior PSR or CSR internal fixation instrumentation to OLIF surgery can significantly improve biomechanical stability of the segment undergoing surgery.
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.