Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40976597›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2026

Optimizing lie-to-stand time to avoid orthostatic intolerance during early mobilization after enhanced recovery after surgery program for minimally invasive spine surgery: oblique lateral interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective cohort study in Thailand.

Panapol Varakornpipat, Wirinaree Kampitak, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Worawat Limthongkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul, Weerasak Singhatanadgige

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Panapol VarakornpipatDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University, Thapho, Thailand.
Wirinaree KampitakDepartment of Anesthesiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Teerachat TanasansomboonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Samut Sakhon Hospital, Samut Sakhon, Thailand.
Wicharn YingsakmongkolDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Worawat LimthongkulDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vit KotheeranurakDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Akaworn MahatthanatrakulDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University, Thapho, Thailand.
Weerasak SinghatanadgigeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designProspective study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the hemodynamic response to early mobilization following oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The ERAS program mitigates surgical stress and facilitates early recovery. Orthostatic intolerance (OI) may impede early mobilization after spine surgery. Data on OI after OLIF and MIS-TLIF with an ERAS are limited. This study compares OI incidence and outcomes of these two procedures.

methodsThe hemodynamic response to postural changes (supine to sitting and standing) was evaluated preoperatively and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively in 30 patients who underwent single-level OLIF versus MIS-TLIF within an ERAS protocol. The protocols were evaluated sequentially, beginning with a change from supine to sitting, followed immediately by standing, with the patient remaining in the standing position for 3 minutes for evaluation.

resultsThis study compared OLIF and MIS-TLIF in 60 patients and found no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The OLIF group demonstrated greater hemodynamic stability within 6 hours after surgery, exhibiting smaller decreases in systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure, along with reduced fluid responsiveness compared to the MIS-TLIF group. Both groups of patients exhibited comparable heart rates and cardiac output stabilization over time. Clinically, OLIF resulted in greater postoperative back pain relief, lower blood loss (45±7.31 mL vs. 99.33±14.13 mL), and higher postoperative hemoglobin levels compared to MIS-TILF. Operative time, hospital stay, and complication rates were comparable between the OLIF and MIS-TLIF groups.

conclusionsOLIF was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters within 6 hours postoperatively, less blood loss, and improved pain relief compared to MIS-TLIF, while both procedures demonstrated similar operative times, hospital stays, and no complications.

Indexed as

Enhanced recovery after surgeryMinimally invasive surgical proceduresOrthostatic intoleranceSpinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID40976597
PMCPMC12960427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.