ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
- Advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
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
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) often necessitates surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) are two commonly used techniques for treating LDH, each offering distinct surgical approaches. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OLIF versus TLIF in terms of pain relief, functional outcomes, spinal alignment correction, fusion success, and postoperative recovery. A retrospective study was conducted on 133 patients who underwent either OLIF (n = 68) or TLIF (n = 65) between January 2020 and December 2022. Data on patient demographics, pain and functional outcomes (measured by Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), radiological outcomes (sagittal and coronal Cobb angles, apical vertebra deviation), fusion and collapse rates, and postoperative recovery (ambulation time and hospitalization duration) were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at P < 0.05. Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in pain and functional outcomes. OLIF resulted in significantly better long-term pain reduction (VAS 1.99 ± 0.67 vs. 2.29 ± 0.92, P = 0.03) and greater spinal alignment correction, particularly in sagittal Cobb angle and apical vertebra deviation (P < 0.001). The fusion rate was similar between OLIF (97.92%) and TLIF (96.61%, P = 0.56), but OLIF had a lower collapse rate (8.33% vs. 18.64%, P < 0.001). OLIF also facilitated faster postoperative recovery, with earlier ambulation and shorter hospitalization time (P < 0.001 for both). While both OLIF and TLIF are effective for treating LDH, OLIF offers superior long-term pain relief, better spinal alignment correction, reduced collapse rates, and faster recovery. These findings suggest that OLIF may be a more advantageous option for patients requiring lumbar interbody fusion.
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.