Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40301854›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2025

A retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative clinical outcomes and radiographic results between patients undergoing TLIF and OLIF surgeries.

Qingyang Huang, Weiguo Zhu, Peng Cui, Shuaikang Wang, Di Han, Peng Wang, Shibao Lu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Qingyang HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Weiguo ZhuDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Peng CuiDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Shuaikang WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Di HanDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Peng WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China.
Shibao LuDepartment of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 10053, China. spinelu@xwhosp.org.

Funding

Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research No.2024-1-2012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the perioperative outcomes, clinical manifestations, and radiographic indicators in patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar fusion (OLIF) and posterior instrumentation, compared with those who underwent posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instrumentation.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort analysis, elderly patients diagnosed with L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2022 and July 2023 at our institution who underwent OLIF and posterior instrumentation (OLIF group), compared with those who underwent posterior TLIF and instrumentation (TLIF group). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol was implemented for all patients. The perioperative data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), radiographic assessments, and complications were gathered immediately after surgery and again at the 1-year follow-up. The perioperative outcomes and immediately postoperative and follow-up radiographic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

resultsA total of 120 patients participated in this study, with 60 patients assigned to the OLIF group and 60 to the TLIF group. With respect to outcomes, the length of stay was notably shorter in the OLIF group compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.001). Patients in the OLIF group exhibited significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume (P < 0.001), first ambulation on the postoperative day (POD) (P < 0.001), drain placement duration (P < 0.001), and urinary catheter retention (P = 0.037) compared to those in the TLIF group. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1 vs. 8, P = 0.015), urinary tract infection (2 vs. 11, P = 0.008), pulmonary infection (2 vs. 10, P = 0.015), and nausea and vomiting (3 vs. 11, P = 0.023). With respect to radiographic measurements, At the 1-year follow-up, the posterior disc height (PDH) and intervertebral disc angle (IDA) demonstrated statistically increase in the OLIF group. The sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was statistically decrease and Lumbosacral lordosis (LL) was statistically increase in the OLIF group.

conclusionOLIF was demonstrated to have significant advantages in terms of perioperative, clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters for L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis for elderly patients, comapred with TLIF.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeERASLocal intervertebral disc parametersOblique lateral lumbar fusionPerioperative outcomesTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID40301854
PMCPMC12042309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.