SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Efficacy and safety of lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases with or without auxiliary posterior fixation: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThere is no conclusive evidence from evidence-based medicine that clarifies whether the efficacy and safety of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) differ significantly with or without auxiliary posterior fixation. This study embarks on a comprehensive comparative meta-analysis, delving into both domestic and international research landscapes, to scrutinize the efficacy of stand-alone LLIF versus LLIF coupled with auxiliary posterior fixation in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases.
methodsIn this meta-analysis, we searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to December 2023. This study includes research comparing LLIF combined with auxiliary posterior fixation versus stand-alone LLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. and we excluded studies without full-text or for which data extraction was not possible; studies using animal studies; reviews and systematic reviews. Review manager 5.3 software was used to analyze the data.
resultsTwelve literatures are included in this study, all of which are cohort studies. The sample sizes varied between 30 and 132, totaling 781 patients, of which 440 belonged to the group with posterior fixation, and 224 to the stand-alone group. Findings revealed a significantly higher fusion rate when LLIF was combined with auxiliary posterior fixation compared to stand-alone LLIF. Additionally, postoperative disc height and restoration in segmental lordosis of LLIF combined with auxiliary posterior fixation were all significantly higher than that of stand-alone LLIF. However, postoperative VAS score for LLIF combined with auxiliary posterior fixation is significantly higher than that for stand-alone LLIF. There were no significant differences in the restoration of lumbar lordosis, the ODI and incidence of adverse events.
conclusionsIn summary, compared to standalone LLIF, the combination of LLIF with auxiliary posterior fixation exhibits a higher postoperative fusion rate. Additionally, both postoperative disc height and restoration of segmental lordosis are significantly greater. Although the occurrence of adverse reactions is consistent between the two surgical approaches, the LLIF combined with auxiliary posterior fixation approach demonstrates a lower reoperation rate.
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.