ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Effects of two endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgical sequences for treatment of unstable lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) is commonly employed for the treatment of unstable lumbar spinal stenosis (ULSS). However, the impact of different surgical sequences on clinical outcomes remains unclear. This study aims to compare outcomes between two Endo-PLIF surgical sequences for ULSS. Method: This retrospective study analyzed ULSS patients who underwent Endo-PLIF at our institution from 2019 to 2023. Group A had guidewire placement before decompression, while Group B had it after. Both groups began with localization and concluded with percutaneous screw fixation. Primary outcomes measured were operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, pedicle screw accuracy (using Gertzbein and Robbins criteria on postoperative CT), and functional scores (VAS, ODI). Fusion rates and complications were also evaluated. Result: Group A demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopies than Group B. Furthermore, pedicle screw placement exhibited a higher rate of excellent/good grades (Gertzbein and Robbins) in Group A. Both groups achieved significant and equivalent improvements in VAS and ODI scores at 1-year follow-up compared to preoperative baselines. Fusion rates and overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusions: For patients with ULSS, following the surgical procedure of inserting the guide wire before decompression can lead to more satisfactory clinical outcomes.
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.