ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2023
Which Approach Leads to More Reoperations in Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Alone?
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Durability of One- and Two-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgeries: A Survivorship Analysis Based on Revision Surgery Rates.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for scoliosis: surgical technique for focal treatment of the lumbosacral fractional curve.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) without an interbody device are two common approaches for single-level, open posterior fusion. Presently, it is unknown whether one of these operations leads to better outcomes. We sought to compare reoperation, complication, and readmission rates between TLIF and PLF for patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort study utilizing prospectively collected data was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between October 2010 and April 2021 with at least 1-year follow-up. The two comparison groups were TLIF vs PLF alone without interbody. The primary outcome was need for reoperation at most recent follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 90-day complication and readmission rates. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 850 patients were included, 591 (69.5%) of whom underwent TLIF and 259 (30.5%) of whom underwent PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.7-8.9). No significant difference was found in overall reoperation rates (12.4% vs 13.9%, CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion without isthmic spondylolisthesis, no differences were seen in reoperation rates at long-term follow-up. Similar 90-day complication and readmission rates were seen. These results suggest that in degenerative lumbar spine disease without isthmic spondylolisthesis, TLIF and PLF achieved similar outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.