Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39090374›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2024

Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature.

Freddy P Jacome, Justin J Lee, David M Hiltzik, Sia Cho, Manasa Pagadala, Wellington K Hsu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Freddy P JacomeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4623-0952
Justin J LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4246-3316
David M HiltzikDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-8036
Sia ChoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Manasa PagadalaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Wellington K HsuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, 303 E Superior, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9086-6868

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSpinal fusion, vital for treating various spinal disorders, has evolved since the introduction of the minimally invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) by Pimenta in 2001. Traditionally performed in the lateral decubitus position, LLIF faces challenges such as intraoperative repositioning, neurological complications, and lack of access to lower lumbar levels. These challenges lead to long surgery times, increased rates of perioperative complications, and increased costs. The more recently popularized prone lateral approach mitigates these issues primarily by eliminating patient repositioning, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency, and reducing operative times. This review examines the progression of spinal fusion techniques, focusing on the advantages and recent findings of the prone lateral approach compared to the traditional LLIF. RECENT

findingsThe prone lateral approach has shown improved patient outcomes, including lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays, and has been validated by multiple studies for its safety and efficacy compared to the LLIF approach. Significant enhancements in postoperative metrics, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and radiological improvements have been noted. Comparatively, the prone lateral approach offers superior segmental lordosis correction and potentially better subjective outcomes than the lateral decubitus position. Despite these advances, both techniques present similar risks of neurological complications. Overall, the prone lateral approach has emerged as a promising alternative in lumbar interbody fusion, combining efficiency, safety, and improved clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Orthopaedic surgeryProne lateral lumbar interbody fusionSpine fusionSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID39090374
PMCPMC11336012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.