ReviewActa neurochirurgica2025
The role of XLIF in spinal revision surgery involving failed interbody implants: a review of technique, outcomes, and indications.
Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review examines the novel application of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) approach for the removal of foreign bodies in the spine, including subsided cages, failed hardware, and other implants. It aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and technical considerations of XLIF in this context and compare it to traditional anterior and posterior surgical approaches.
methodsA comprehensive literature search in accordance with PRISMA was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included "extreme lateral interbody fusion," "lateral lumbar interbody fusion," "cage retrieval," "revision surgery," and "foreign body removal." Articles were selected based on relevance to XLIF use in foreign body removal and included case reports, clinical trials, and observational studies published in English before April 7, 2025.
resultsSeven documented cases met inclusion criteria. The XLIF approach demonstrated advantages such as reduced operative time, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. It allowed safe access around scar tissue and critical neurovascular structures. The technique was successfully used to remove migrated or failed implants in the lumbar spine with minimal complications, most of which were transient. The approach also enabled the insertion of larger interbody cages, contributing to improved spinal stability and fusion outcomes.
conclusionThe XLIF approach is a promising alternative for foreign body removal in complex spinal revision surgeries. However, potential complications, such as transient nerve injury, underscore the need for careful patient selection and surgical expertise. Further studies are needed to validate its broader clinical application.
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.