SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2025
Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Trajectory and influencing factors of changes in anxiety and depression in elderly patients after lumbar interbody fusion.World journal of psychiatry · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough endoscopic technologies have been increasingly applied in lumbar fusion surgery in recent years, the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic posterolateral fusion compared with lateral fusion remain unclear. Six different single-level lumbar interbody fusion procedures were compared to determine whether indirect decompression fusion could achieve levels of efficacy and safety comparable to those of minimally invasive direct decompression fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).
methodA literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and studies on the treatment of LDD published from 2004 to March 2024 were retrieved. The data of preset clinical outcome measures, including operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were extracted from the studies.
resultsThirty-five studies with 3467 patients were included in this review. Network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in improvements in pain and disability or adverse events among the procedures, except for uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UELIF), which resulted in a lower degree of improvement in the ODI than oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF). Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF) exhibited the best performance in terms of indicators of early efficacy, such as surgical time and LOS. OLIF and SA-LLIF had higher fusion rates than did UELIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF resulted in greater EBL than did OLIF, SA-LLIF, and UELIF.
conclusionMinimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion achieves good therapeutic results in LDD patients regardless of the use of indirect or direct decompression, whereas SA-LLIF has better early efficacy.
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.