ArticleNeurospine2022
Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery.
Article in Neurospine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical considerations for time-efficient four-level biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in a frail elderly patient with severe lumbar deformity: a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Global research landscape and citation dynamics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential articles.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Can Wallis topping-off surgery reduce radiographic adjacent segment degeneration? a single-center study with at least 8 years of long-term follow-up.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Article
- OralFrontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Quantitative Threshold of Intraoperative Radiological Parameters for Suspecting Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Malposition Triggering Contralateral Radiculopathy.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Screening patients requiring secondary lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a nationwide sample cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- An Expanded Surgical Corridor of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4-5: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Letter to the Editor : Classifying the Anatomical Location of the Ureter after Retroperitoneal Dissection.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023Article
- Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Commentary on "Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion".Neurospine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery.
methodsWe enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS).
resultsCompared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia.
conclusionSince complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered.
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.