ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
L4-L5 anatomy classification system for lateral lumbar interbody fusion.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), developed by Dr. Luiz Pimenta in 2006, allows access to the spinal column through the psoas major muscle. The technique has many advantages, such as reduced bone and muscular tissue damage, indirect decompression, larger implants, and lordosis correction capabilities. However, this technique also has drawbacks, with the most notorious being the risk of spinal pathologies due to indirect injury of the lumbar plexus, but with low rates of persistent injuries. Therefore, several groups have proposed classifications to help identify patients at a greater risk of presenting with neurological deficits. The present work proposes a classification system that relies on simple observation of easily identifiable key structures to guide lateral L4-L5 LLIF decision-making. Patients aged > 18 years who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2022 and 2023 were included until 50 high-quality images were acquired. And excluded as follow Anatomical changes in the vertebral body or major psoas muscles prevent the identification of key structures or poor-quality MRIs. Each anatomy was classified as type I, type II, or type III according to the consensus among the three observers. Fifty anatomical sites were included in this study. 70% of the L4-L5 anatomy were type I, 18% were type II, and 12% were type III. None of the type 3 L4-L5 anatomies were approached using a lateral technique. The proposed classification is an easy and simple method for evaluating the feasibility of a lateral approach to-L4-L5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39227486What 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.