ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Comparative study of clinical effects between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disparity between early radiographic decompression and one-year patient satisfaction after single-level LLIF: proposal of the structural improvement score (SIS) and QOL improvement score (QIS).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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical effects of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Method: This was a retrospective study. The clinical data of 80 patients with lumbar disc degenerative disease who underwent surgery in Affiliated Hospital of Beihua University from May 2018 to May 2023 were selected. The patients were divided into LLIF group and OLIF group according to surgical methods. Compare the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey(SF-36), Visual Analog Scale(VAS) scores, Oswesterly Disability Index(ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA) scores, Cobb angle, and intervertebral height changes between two groups of patients pre- and posttreatment, and evaluate the differences in clinical efficacy and surgical complications. Result: Postsurgery, the SF-36 score, VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score of two groups were significantly better than presurgery(p<0.05); After three months of treatment, the improvement in OLIF group was better than LLIF group(p<0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at six months postsurgery(p>0.05). Six months postsurgery, the intervertebral space height and Cobb angle of the two groups were significantly improved compared to presurgery (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups(p>0.05). There was no difference in clinical efficacy and incidence between the two groups(p>0.05). Conclusion: LLIF and OLIF may be both safe and effective minimally invasive surgical methods for the treatment of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.
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.