Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38129119›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2025

A Comparison of Hidden Blood Loss Between Multilevel Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

Hayato Kinoshita, Eiji Abe, Takashi Kobayashi, Michio Hongo, Yuji Kasukawa, Kazuma Kikuchi, Daisuke Kudo, Ryota Kimura, Naohisa Miyakoshi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Modifiable risk factors for perioperative hidden blood loss in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Hayato KinoshitaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8845-6699
Eiji AbeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita Kosei Medical Center, Akita, Japan.
Takashi KobayashiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita Kosei Medical Center, Akita, Japan.
Michio HongoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Yuji KasukawaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Kazuma KikuchiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Yuri Kumiai General Hospital, Yurihonjo, Japan.
Daisuke KudoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Ryota KimuraDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4855-3283
Naohisa MiyakoshiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective cohort study.

objectivesThis study aimed to compare transfusion and blood loss volumes, particularly hidden blood loss volume, in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Corrective surgery for adults with spinal deformity patients can be performed via the traditional posterior approach (PLIF) or minimally invasive lateral approach (LLIF). LLIF is associated with longer or comparable operation times and lower intraoperative blood loss. However, hidden blood loss has not been compared between the two procedures.

methodsWe compared hidden blood loss and other blood loss volumes, transfusion volume, operation time, and radiographic surgical outcomes between LLIF patients (n = 71) and PLIF patients (n = 33) who underwent surgery in our institution from September 2011 to June 2018. All patients provided informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Institutional ethics committee conducted this study approval was obtained.

resultsTransfusion volume and intraoperative and total blood loss volumes were significantly higher in the PLIF group. Operation time and HBL did not significantly differ. The hidden blood loss-to-intraoperative blood loss ratio was significantly higher in the LLIF group (113% vs 60%;

conclusionsAlthough intraoperative blood loss was less with LLIF than PLIF, HBL was similar between the approaches. Patients undergoing LLIF should be followed closely for postoperative anemia even if intraoperative blood loss is low.

Indexed as

anemiaintraoperative blood losslateral lumbar interbody fusiontransfusion

Identifiers

PMID38129119
PMCPMC11877559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.