ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Comparison of Modified Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Posterior-Only Approach in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDegenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) often requires surgical intervention, but traditional posterior-only approaches, despite their effectiveness, result in significant muscle damage and high complication rates. Minimally invasive techniques like oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and the Wiltse approach are preferred for preserving posterior structures. However, the lack of controlled studies comparing combined approaches to traditional methods limits their efficacy evaluation. The purpose of this study is to explore the clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF with posterior fixation through Wiltse approach versus a posterior-only approach in treating DLS.
methodsThis retrospective study included 88 DLS patients underwent surgery from January 2019 to September 2021. The patients were divided into the OLIF group (n = 32) and the posterior group (n = 56). Comprehensive evaluations of clinical and radiological outcomes, including Cobb angle, coronal balance distance (CBD), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS) were conducted, with a subsequent subgrouping of OLIF group based on preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) into Subgroup A (SVA ≤ 50 mm) and Subgroup B (SVA > 50 mm) for further analysis. The t-test or Wilcoxon's rank sum test is used to compare continuous variables, and the chi-square test is used to compare categorical variables.
resultsThe OLIF group had fewer fixation levels (4.25 ± 1.08 vs. 5.56 ± 2.04, p < 0.001) and shorter hospitalization (5.22 ± 2.25 d vs. 6.66 ± 2.16 d, p < 0.001), fewer drainage volume (371.94 mL vs. 1065.25 mL, p < 0.001), but longer surgical time. Postoperatively, the OLIF group showed better clinical outcomes. In both groups, Cobb angle, coronal balance distance, and sagittal spinal pelvic parameters improved significantly. The OLIF group achieved a lower SVA (23.84 mm ± 36.70 mm vs. 42.84 mm ± 36.25 mm, p = 0.027), which was not maintained at the final follow-up. Subgroup A maintained sagittal balance (34.55 mm ± 24.99 mm vs. 83.73 mm ± 61.90 mm, p = 0.029). Moreover, the OLIF group had fewer complications.
conclusionMinimally invasive multi-level OLIF with posterior fixation through Wiltse approach, as compared to the conventional posterior approach, has fewer fixation segments, offers comparable radiographic outcomes and, more importantly, superior clinical results. In addition, patients with a preoperative SVA > 50 mm could benefit from more fixation levels to maintain sagittal balance.
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.