Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36917302›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature.

Rodrigo Amaral, Gabriel Pokorny, Fernando Marcelino, Rafael Moriguchi, Jullyene Pokorny, Igor Barreira, Weby Mizael, Marcelo Yozo, Sebastião Fragoso, Luiz Pimenta

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reoperation rates and radiographic outcomes after short-segment standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis.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. Multimodal model predicts screw loosening at user-specified postoperative time points after single-level 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. 10-Year trend of lateral lumbar interbody fusion and the impact of 3D-printed titanium in a high-volume academic center.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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. Predictive performance of CT hounsfield units and MRI vertebral bone quality score following single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: which is better.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
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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
  12. Hounsfield units vs. vertebral bone quality score: which is a better predictor of screw loosening after single-level 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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

10 authors.

Rodrigo AmaralInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Gabriel PokornyInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. g.pokorny@patologiadacoluna.com.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-8032
Fernando MarcelinoInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rafael MoriguchiInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Jullyene PokornyInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Igor BarreiraInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Weby MizaelInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Marcelo YozoInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Sebastião FragosoInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Luiz PimentaInstituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.

resultsTwenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).

conclusionLateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

Indexed as

LordosisSpinal FusionHumansLumbar VertebraeLumbosacral RegionPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLLIFPLFPLIFSystematic reviewTLIF

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.