ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2024
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for correction of lumbosacral fractional curves in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis: A systematic review.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Modified Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Three-Planar Correction for Severe Adult Spinal Deformity: Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Article
- Lordotic restoration: A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion expandable and static cages at the lumbosacral junction.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be used to correct the lumbosacral fractional curve (LsFC) in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Yet, the relative benefits of ALIF and TLIF for LsFC correction remain largely undetermined. Purpose: To compare the currently available data comparing radiographic correction of the LsFC provided by ALIF and TLIF of LsFC in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis. Methods: A systematic review was performed on original articles discussing fractional curve correction of lumbosacral spinal deformity (using search criteria: "lumbar" and "fractional curve"). Articles which discussed TLIF or ALIF for LsFC correction were presented and radiographic results for TLIF and ALIF were compared. Results: Thirty-one articles were returned in the original search criteria, with 7 articles included in the systematic review criteria. All 7 articles presented radiographic results using TLIF for LsFC correction. Three of these articles also discussed results for patients whose LsFC were treated with ALIFs; 2 articles directly compared TLIF and ALIF for LsFC correction. Level III and level IV evidence indicated ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC. There were mixed results on relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of adequate global coronal alignment. Conclusions: Limited level III and IV evidence suggests ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of global coronal alignment may be dictated by several factors, including directionality and magnitude of preoperative coronal deformity. Given the limited and low-quality evidence, additional research is warranted to determine the ideal interbody support strategies to address the LsFC in adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis.
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.