ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications in Different Fusion Surgical Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond BMI: L4-L5 visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio on CT predicts impaired wound healing after posterior lumbar fusion-A retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies have confirmed that both posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), have their advantages and disadvantages. However, the inconsistent results of these studies make it difficult to reach a consensus on which fusion method is superior.
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of PLIF, PLF, and hybrid surgery combining PLIF and PLF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted, collecting clinical records and radiological data of patients with lumbar degenerative disease from 2014 to 2022. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on surgical strategy: PLIF group, PLF group, and hybrid group. Clinical data included patient-reported outcomes such as the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, Oswestry Disability Index score, visual analog scale score, 36-item Short Form Health Survey score, and the occurrence of complications. Radiological data included Cobb angle, fusion rate, adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg), adjacent segment disease (ASDis), and cage subsidence.
resultsA total of 378 patients were divided into 3 groups: PLIF group (
conclusionAll 3 surgical techniques might improve the clinical symptoms of patients with degenerative lumbar disease effectively. The hybrid technique demonstrated comparable efficacy to PLIF and PLF in increasing fusion rate, reducing complications, and decreasing the occurrence of ASDeg in multilevel fusion cases significantly. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study holds significant clinical relevance as it directly addresses the treatment outcomes of common surgical interventions for lumbar degenerative disease, a condition that significantly impacts patient quality of life and functionality. This study is also crucial for clinicians when selecting the most appropriate treatment strategy for patients with lumbar degenerative disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.