ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparative efficacy of autologous iliac bone versus allogeneic demineralized bone matrix in lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a novel minimally invasive iliac bone retrieval tool: a self-controlled study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in PETLIF: Short-Term Perioperative Muscle Injury and Pain Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Practical Strategies for Bone Graft Selection in Spinal Fusion: A Narrative Review with Regional Perspectives.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Review
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
objectiveThis self-controlled study evaluates the fusion efficacy of autologous iliac bone harvested via a novel minimally invasive tool versus allogeneic demineralized bone matrix (DBM) in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), while assessing the safety profile of the retrieval tool.
methodsThis study was a prospective clinical controlled study. Patients' basic information was recorded, including the age, gender, body mass index and etc. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Three parameters were measured, including intervertebral space height, intervertebral foraminal height and lumbar lordosis angle, before surgery and 3 days/24 months after surgery. Postoperative CT scan was used to compare the difference in interbody fusion between autologous iliac bone and allogeneic bone DBM at 6 and 24 months after surgery.
results30 patients followed up for more than 24 months were included. The preoperative VAS for lower back and leg pain was 5.00 ± 0.87, and the preoperative ODI was 48.37 ± 8.53. The VAS for lower back and leg pain was 0.87 ± 0.63, and the ODI was 12.30 ± 2.58 at 24 months after surgery. The VAS and ODI in each postoperative stage were significantly improved compared to the preoperative (P < 0.05). The VAS of the bone extraction area was 1 (0,2) after surgery, and the pain disappeared approximately 2 days after surgery. At 6 months postoperatively, the fusion rate was 66.7% (20/30) for autologous iliac bone versus 30.0% (9/30) for allogeneic DBM (P < 0.05). the fusion rate on the autogenous iliac bone side (96.7%) was significantly higher than that on the DBM side (70.0%) at 24 months after surgery (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe novel retrieval tool enables safe, minimally invasive harvest of autologous iliac bone, which achieved significantly higher fusion rates than allogeneic DBM in LLIF.
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.