ReviewNagoya journal of medical science2025
Current status of indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion.
Review in Nagoya journal of medical science, 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.
- Predictive factors for satisfaction with surgery following anterior posterior same day spinal fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adoption of lumbar fusion techniques, particularly lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), has significantly evolved the management of degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. LLIF, introduced as a minimally invasive surgical procedure, offers the advantage of indirect neural decompression and robust bone fusion using large interbody cages, reducing complications such as cage subsidence and nerve injuries. Systematic reviews have indicated that LLIF was effective for foraminal decompression, although evidence regarding its effectiveness for spinal canal and lateral recess decompression remains limited. Comparisons between indirect decompression techniques like LLIF and direct methods (posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) have revealed that while indirect approaches generally promoted lower surgical times and blood loss, outcomes related to pain, disability, and complications were comparable. Indirect decompression with LLIF should be approached cautiously or avoided in patients with severe stenosis or preoperative neurological impairments due to the increased risk for postoperative complications. Furthermore, meticulous surgical planning and advanced imaging techniques are essential for mitigating risks such as vascular, bowel, and ureteral injuries. Continued advancements in surgical instrumentation and navigation technologies are expected to further refine the utility of LLIF in treating complex spinal pathologies, offering a promising minimally invasive option for achieving effective spinal stabilization and decompression.
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.