ArticleCureus2025
Outcome Comparison of Posterior Lumbar Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lumbar postoperativeFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The impact of preoperative anticoagulant administration on postoperative coagulation function and blood loss following posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common spinal condition characterized by the anterior slippage of a vertebra over the one below due to degenerative changes. It often leads to chronic low back pain, radiculopathy, and spinal stenosis. Surgical intervention is typically considered when conservative treatments fail, with posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) being two widely used techniques.
objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological outcomes along with complication rates, among patients who underwent PLF and PLIF for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. METHODOLOGY: This prospective cohort study was conducted on 100 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent either PLF (n=50) or PLIF (n=50). Preoperative clinical features, including low back pain, radicular symptoms, and neurologic deficits, were recorded. Postoperative outcomes at six months included low back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), radiological fusion (Bridwell grade), infection, hardware failure, and reoperation. Categorical data were compared using Chi-square tests and logistic regression was applied to determine independent associations.
resultsPostoperative low back pain was reported by 18 (36.0%) patients in the PLIF group compared to 42 (84.0%) patients in the PLF group (p < 0.001). PLIF patients showed superior functional outcomes with more achieving minimal disability on the ODI (80% vs. 52%, p = 0.007) and better radiological fusion (Grade 1 fusion in 60% vs. 24%, p < 0.001). Reoperation was significantly more frequent in the PLF group (24% vs. 4%, p = 0.004). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed PLIF as an independent predictor of improved outcomes.
conclusionPLIF demonstrated superior clinical and radiological outcomes with fewer reoperations compared to PLF at six-month follow-up. These findings support the preference for PLIF in selected cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis.
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.