ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
- Unveiling the role of lumbar intervertebral space morphology: a novel classification and its impact on cage migration in lumbar fusion surgery.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of various fixation strategies in oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCage subsidence is a common morbidity after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), with risk of compromising clinical and radiographic outcomes. The study aims to describe an innovative reverse lumbar pedicle screw (RLPS) technique in OLIF and compare its effect on restricting cage subsidence with classical lateral fixation (LF) in radiological and clinical evaluation.
methodConsecutive patients having undergone single-level OLIF-LF/RLPS from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. In OLIF-RLPS, the upper entry point was determined at the intersection between one horizontal line (1 cm above inferior endplate) and one vertical line (dissecting anterior and middle thirds of the vertebra) while the inferior entry point between one horizontal line (5 mm below superior endplate) and the same vertical line. Trajectories were from vertebrae reverse into contralateral pedicle. Radiological evaluation included disc height (DH) and segmental lordosis (SL); cage subsidence was evaluated by DH loss. Clinical assessment included visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Student t or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variation according to normality analysis while Chi-square test for category variation.
resultsA total of 29 patients had been enrolled in the study including 14 cases in the RLPS group and 15 cases in the LF group. The DH in the OLIF-RLPS group had increased from the preoperative 9.07 ± 1.73 mm to 13.73 ± 1.83 mm postoperatively, without significant difference compared with the OLIF-LF group during the perioperative, but decreased to 12.53 ± 1.74 mm in 3 months and maintained at 12.00 ± 1.45 mm in 12 months, significantly higher than the OLIF-LF group (p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, 7.1% (1/14) cases in the OLIF-RLPS group had shown subsidence of grade I, significantly less than 46.7% (7/15) cases in the OLIF-LF group. Pain and disability had improved similarly in two groups, without significant difference detected between two groups at the last follow-up.
conclusionRLPS technique with modified entry points and prolonged trajectory could effectively restrict cage subsidence in OLIF postoperatively compared with traditional lateral fixation.
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.