ArticleCureus2025
Feasibility of Ipsilateral Revision Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Disease After Primary Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Case Series.
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.
- A finite element-based comparative dynamic biomechanical study of a novel oblique lateral locking plate system (OLLPS) versus traditional internal fixations for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) under whole-body vibration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive procedure widely used to treat various lumbar spinal disorders. Although OLIF is an effective salvage procedure for adjacent segment disease (ASD) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), the feasibility of revision OLIF (re-OLIF) for ASD after primary OLIF remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of re-OLIF in patients with ASD after primary OLIF. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective case series included patients who underwent OLIF at our hospital between 2012 and 2023, developed ASD postoperatively, and subsequently underwent re-OLIF with at least 12 months of follow-up. Clinical data, including operative details, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative complications, and clinical outcomes such as visual analog scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were collected and analyzed.
resultsSix patients underwent re-OLIF for ASD following primary OLIF. Re-OLIF was successfully performed in all cases with no significant complications or difficulties. Operative time and intraoperative blood loss were comparable between the re-OLIF and primary OLIF groups. Clinical outcomes improved significantly after re-OLIF, with VAS scores decreasing from a median of 7.5 to 2.0 and JOA scores increasing from a median of 15.5 to 21.0.
conclusionsRe-OLIF can be a safe and effective salvage procedure for ASD after primary OLIF, with outcomes comparable to those of primary OLIF. Given the increasing number of OLIF procedures performed, further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the long-term safety and efficacy of re-OLIF as a salvage option for ASD.
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.