ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2023
Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stand-alone versus supplemented ALIF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pseudarthrosis and reoperation rates.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2025Pooled it
- Association of paraspinal muscle morphology or composition with sagittal spinopelvic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Single-position lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion: anatomic considerations, workflow optimization, and technical nuances.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration is associated with nonunion and cage subsidence after anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion: a level-specific analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- CT Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Review with an Integrated Framework for Principle-Based Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous screw fixation in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of a Novel Titanium Cage System in ALIF and LLIF: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Time Course of Functional Recovery Following Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with and Without Posterior Instrumentation: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative clinical outcomes and radiographic results between patients undergoing TLIF and OLIF surgeries.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Impact of a standardized perioperative care protocol on functional and radiographic outcomes following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 2-year randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the effects between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- A Comparative Study between Single-Level Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- 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
- Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Analysis Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Cyclic testing of standalone ALIF versus TLIF in lumbosacral spines of low bone mineral density: an ex vivo biomechanical study.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 · 2024Article
- The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Treatment of refractory low back pain due to arthrosis of the lumbar spine with or without spondylolisthesis using anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Lordotic restoration: A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion expandable and static cages at the lumbosacral junction.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).
methodsPatients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017-2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up.
resultsA total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients.
conclusionsRegarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.
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.