SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2024
Fusion rate and complications of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 7-year minimum follow-up of the M6-L total disk replacement for low back pain with radiculopathy in young railway employees: a retrospective single-center study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Review
- Safety and biological effectiveness of transforaminal (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): a retrospective cohort study including patients with significant comorbidity.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Combined oblique lateral interbody fusion and spinal endoscopy (Endo-OLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease: early clinical outcomes of a novel minimally invasive approach.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Global research landscape and citation dynamics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential articles.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar adjacent segment disease: a retrospective comparative study of clinical and radiographic outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Advantages of a new improved oblique Retractor in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There currently exists some controversy about the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Aim: This study compares the application effects of OLIF and TLIF in lumbar degenerative diseases by reviewing the literature and using meta-analysis. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing TLIF and OLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. We searched for words such as "intervertebral disc degeneration," "spinal fusion," and "lumbar vertebrae" in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The search date was set from the establishment date of the database to October 2023. Two authors independently conducted document screening, data abstraction, and qualitative assessment. A meta-analysis was performed and adapted to RevMan5.3 software. The odds ratio (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% CI were calculated by adopting a fixed-effect model (FEM) or a random-effect model (REM). Results: A total of 18 cohort studies were included with 1,550 patients, of whom 806 patients underwent TLIF (TLIF group) and 744 patients underwent OLIF (OLIF group). There were no significant differences found in the fusion rate [OR = 1.58 (0.95, 2.64), Conclusion: In the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, compared with TLIF, OLIF has more advantages in terms of improving the lumbar function, restoring the FH and DH, and shortening the LOS. Both methods have comparable fusion rates, complication rates, and lumbar pain improvements. Due to the small amount of research and unclear assessment of the risk of bias, high-quality, large-sample randomized controlled studies are required to prove it.
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.