Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39507953›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025

Comparison of patient outcomes of anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusions: A retrospective national database analysis.

Cole Veliky, Paul Michael Alvarez, Hania Shahzad, Diego Martinez, Elizabeth Yu, Varun K Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparison of anterolateral versus posterior lumbar fusion techniques in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Durability of One- and Two-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgeries: A Survivorship Analysis Based on Revision Surgery Rates.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Cole VelikyThe Ohio State University College of Medicine, USA.
Paul Michael AlvarezDepartment of Orthopedics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, USA.
Hania ShahzadDepartment of Orthopedics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, USA.
Diego MartinezCooper Medical School of Rowan University, USA.
Elizabeth YuDepartment of Orthopedics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, USA.
Varun K SinghDepartment of Orthopedics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lumbar interbody fusions are used to treat degenerative lumbar disease unresponsive to conservative treatment. This procedure may be divided into anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF). Despite their widespread use, comparative research on their outcomes remains limited. Methods: The PearlDiver Database was utilized to identify patients undergoing single and multi-level ALIF and PLIF/TLIF between 2010 and 2022. We examined demographic data, comorbidities, and reoperation rates at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years. Complications were assessed using multivariable regression to adjust for confounders. Results: The study included multi-level anterior interbody fusions (N = 569, mean age 59.8, 59 % female), multi-level posterior interbody fusions (N = 43,651, mean age 57.9, 60 % female), single-level anterior interbody fusions (N = 3,547, mean age 55.3, 61 % female) and single-level posterior interbody fusions (N = 25,792, mean age 56.9, 62 % female). Multi-level posterior interbody fusion patients had a lower prevalence of HTN (OR .77, P < .05), ischemic heart disease (OR .73, P < .05), CDK (OR .77, P < .05), postoperatively more DVTs (OR 1.44, P < .05), a lower incidence of respiratory failure (OR .57, P < .05), and a higher 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year all-cause reoperation rate (7.3 %) compared to multi-level anterior interbody fusion patients (3.7 %). Single-level posterior interbody fusion patients had more HTN (OR 1.1, P < .05), less ischemic heart disease (OR .89, P < .05), obesity (OR .92, P < .05), and postoperatively a higher incidence of DVT (OR 1.34, P < .05) but lower 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year all-cause reoperation rates. Conclusions: This study confirms that posterior interbody fusions are more common than anterior procedures, though the latter is increasing. Reoperation rates are higher for multi-level posterior and single-level anterior fusions. Both anterior and posterior approaches show similar complication profiles, though specific risks, such as postoperative DVT, vary. These findings emphasize the need for ongoing research and consideration of individual patient factors when choosing an interbody fusion technique.

Indexed as

ALIFComplicationsDatabase StudyEpidemiologyPLIF

Identifiers

PMID39507953
PMCPMC11535260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.