ArticleCureus2025
Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion Using Transforaminal vs. Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Across BMI Categories in Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spondylolisthesis often causes pain and disability, requiring surgical intervention. While prior studies explore the impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes following lumbar fusion, the effect of different surgical approaches, specifically transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), across BMI categories remains unclear. This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following TLIF and LLIF in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis, focusing on BMI stratification.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzes patients with low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent lumbar fusion between 2010 and 2023. Patients were stratified by BMI into the following four groups: non-obese (<30), class I (30-34.9), class II (35-39.9), and class III (≥40). It assesses PROs using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at baseline and 12 months, comparing the achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) between TLIF and LLIF.
resultsThis analysis included 72 patients showing significant improvements in ODI (mean change: 17.0; p<0.001) and VAS (mean change: 2.3; p<0.001) scores across all BMI categories at 12 months. TLIF and LLIF achieve similar rates of MCID, with no statistically significant differences between the surgical approaches (p=0.72). Non-obese and class II patients maintain sustained improvements.
conclusionLumbar fusion using both open and minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF and LLIF leads to significant disability reduction across BMI categories, indicating that obesity does not contraindicate lumbar fusion. Surgical approach selection should focus on individual patient factors rather than BMI alone. Prospective studies with extended follow-up will further clarify the long-term impact of these approaches.
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.