ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Supplemental Fixation on Fusion and Subsidence After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is currently popularized as an effective and safe approach to attain a lumbar fusion. The effect that supplemental fixation plays on fusion and subsidence rates after lateral lumbar surgery remains understudied. This study aims to directly compare fusion rates and subsidence rates in patients undergoing single-level lateral lumbar surgery with and without supplemental fixation for the treatment of degenerative disc disease with or without spondylolisthesis. Methods We included all single-level lateral interbody procedures for degenerative disc disease with or without spondylolisthesis. We excluded adult spinal deformity, infections, trauma, neoplastic pathology, and patients undergoing lateral interbody fusion of more than one level. Basic demographic data, lumbar lordosis, subsidence rates, and fusion rates were measured across the two groups. Results Forty-five (54.2%) patients underwent interbody placement alone without posterior supplemental fixation, while thirty-eight (45.8%) patients underwent percutaneous pedicle screw placement in addition to interbody placement. Only two patients underwent interbody placement at L1-2, none of whom received posterior fixation. Also, there was no significant difference in the mean change in lumbar lordosis (LL) angle between both groups (p=0.7). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in terms of the fusion (p=0.5) and subsidence (p=0.4) grades between both groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the supplemented fixation group (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the hospital stay between both groups (p=0.7). Conclusion Supplemental fixation did not significantly affect fusion or subsidence rates in this study. Further studies are warranted to verify the results of this study.
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.