Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36528567›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Predictors and tactics for revision surgery in lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Weijian Wang, Jiaqi Li, Yafei Xu, Yun Luo, Wenyuan Ding, Wei Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disparity between early radiographic decompression and one-year patient satisfaction after single-level LLIF: proposal of the structural improvement score (SIS) and QOL improvement score (QIS).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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Machine learning insights into patient satisfaction following lateral lumbar interbody fusion.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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Weijian WangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Jiaqi LiDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China. lijiaqiat430@163.com.
Yafei XuDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Yun LuoDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Wenyuan DingDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Hebei Medical University Third Affiliated Hospital, 050000, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China. zhangweiat430@sina.com.
Hebei Medical University · CNThird Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CN

Funding

Bureau of Science and Technology of Hebei Province 22377708DHebei Medical Science Research Project 20221185
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study is to analyze the factors affecting the revision of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and to summarize the complications and decision-making strategies for revision surgery after LLIF.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 21 cases suffered from a revision surgery after LLIF in our department from May 2017 to June 2020, with a mean follow-up of 14 months (12-25months). We collected X-ray plain films, CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and medical records of all patients undergoing LLIF surgery, then analyzed the reasons for revision and summarized the revision strategies in different situations. We analysed correlations between revision surgery and several factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), sex, bone quality, mode of internal fixation, spinal stenosis, postperative foraminal stenosis, disc height. Then we brought the different indicators into logistic regression to find out the risk factors of revision after LLIF. All these patients were evaluated by Quality-of-life outcomes. Univariate statistical analysis was performed using T-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi square tests.

resultsOf the 209 cases of LLIF, 21 patients underwent postoperative revision. All revision surgeries were successfully completed. The reasons for revision included vascular injury, unsatistactory implant placement, internal spinal instrumentation failure, cage migration, indirect decompression failure and infection. Indirect decompression failure was the most common indications for revision. Clinical status was apparently improved in ODI scores and VAS scores. Revision surgery did not impact long-term effect and satisfaction. Postoperative foraminal stenosis is a positive predictor for a revision surgical procedure.

conclusionPatients with postoperative foraminal stenosis are at higher risk of undergoing revision surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The correct choice of revision surgery can achieve satisfactory clinical results.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionConstriction, PathologicHumansPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeComplicationLateral lumbar interbody fusionRevisionRisk factorTactic

Identifiers

PMID36528567
PMCPMC9758827
OpenAlexW4311696842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.