ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2023
Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Single-Level, Stand-Alone LLIF Without Supplemental Posterior Fixation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Review
- Review
- Comparative analysis of acute postoperative pain and opioid use between lateral transpsoas, anterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of various fixation strategies in oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The evolving role of lateral lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar fusion: challenging the dominance of transforaminal interbody fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation and finite element analysis of bone cement-augmented anterolateral screw fixation versus percutaneous bilateral pedicle screw fixation co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Outcomes Requiring Additional Intervention Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Perspective; high frequency of intraoperative errors due to extreme, oblique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF, OLIF, LLIF): Are they "safe"?Surgical neurology international · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Context: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region. Methods: A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level. Results: A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.
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.