ArticleBMC surgery2022
Comparison of transfacet and pedicle screws in oblique lateral interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extended uses of robots in spine surgery beyond thoracolumbar pedicle screws: A narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo perform a comparative assessment of percutaneous transfacet screws (TFS) and percutaneous bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) in oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spine diseases in terms of radiological examinations and clinical outcomes.
methodsSixty-six patients who received single-level OLIF with percutaneous supplementary fixation assisted by the robot for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases were selected. There were 16 cases of OLIF with TFS and 50 cases of OLIF with BPS. The propensity score matching method selected 11 patients in each group with matched characteristics to perform a clinical comparison.
resultsThe estimated blood loss was 68.2 ± 25.2 ml in the OLIF with TFS group compared to 113.6 ± 39.3 ml in the OLIF with BPS group (P < 0.05). The intervertebral disc height raised from 8.6 to 12.9 mm in the TFS group and from 8.9 to 13.9 mm in the BPS group in the immediate postoperative period, and dropped to 10.8 and 12.9 mm at the twelfth month, respectively (P < 0.05). The fusion rates were 91% and 100% for TFS and BPS groups (P > 0.05). Quantitative assessments of back/leg pain of the two groups reached a healthy level in the late period of the follow-up.
conclusionBoth TFS and BPS techniques for the OLIF surgery relieve back pain caused by degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The TFS technique exhibits less blood loss compared with the BPS. A moderate cage subsidence is present in TFS but no complication is reported.
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.