ArticleNeurospine2023
Biomechanical Comparison of Multilevel Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion With Posterior Pedicle Screws: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of lateral fusion in single-level oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective analysis of fusion patterns and clinical outcomes.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Preclinical evaluation of a 3D-printed porous stand-alone interbody cage for cervical fusion in a sheep model.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) allows placement of large interbody cages while preserving ligamentous structures important for stability. Multiple clinical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of stand-alone LLIF in single-level fusion. We sought to compare the stability of 4-level stand-alone LLIF utilizing wide (26 mm) cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation.
methodsEight human cadaveric specimens of L1-5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Flexion, extension, and lateral bending were attained by applying a 200 N load at a rate of 2 mm/sec. Axial rotation of ± 8° of the specimen was performed at 2°/sec. Three-dimensional specimen motion was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact, (2) bilateral pedicle screws and rods, (3) 26-mm stand-alone LLIF, (4) 26-mm LLIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods.
resultsCompared to the stand-alone LLIF, bilateral pedicle screws and rods had 47% less range of motion in flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 21% less in lateral bending (p < 0.05), and 20% less in axial rotation (p = 0.1). The addition of bilateral posterior instrumentation to the stand-alone LLIF resulted in decreases of all 3 planes of motion: 61% in flexion-extension ( p < 0.001), 57% in lateral bending (p < 0.001), 22% in axial rotation (p = 0.002).
conclusionDespite the biomechanical advantages associated with the lateral approach and 26 mm wide cages, stand-alone LLIF for 4-level fusion is not equivalent to pedicle screws and rods.
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.