ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Clinical values of oblique lumbar interbody fusion on the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.
Article 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 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.
- A finite element-based comparative dynamic biomechanical study of a novel oblique lateral locking plate system (OLLPS) versus traditional internal fixations for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) under whole-body vibration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) are increasingly replacing traditional approaches. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of OLIF and Mis-TLIF in treating single-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: Patients with single-level degenerative lumbar diseases underwent either OLIF (30 patients) or Mis-TLIF (30 patients). Surgical data, including operation time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, and postoperative bed rest duration, were collected. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry disability index, the visual analog scale scores for low back pain and leg pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores for daily ability, along with monitoring of complications. Results: The OLIF group showed significantly shorter operative times, less blood loss, reduced postoperative drainage, and shorter bed rest durations than the Mis-TLIF group. At the 1-month follow-up, OLIF patients also demonstrated significantly better clinical outcome scores than Mis-TLIF patients. No significant differences were observed between OLIF and Mis-TLIF patients before surgery and after 3 months. Furthermore, lumbar lordosis and disc height were significantly greater in the OLIF group at the final follow-up. Conclusions: Both OLIF and Mis-TLIF achieved satisfactory and effective long-term clinical outcomes for single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. However, OLIF resulted in less tissue damage, reduced bleeding, better short-term clinical outcomes, and improved recovery of segmental lordosis compared to Mis-TLIF. Therefore, OLIF appears to be the preferable option over Mis-TLIF.
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.