ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparison of midterm outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral vertebral body screw fixation for single level spondylolisthesis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is aiming to compare the intra-operative, radiographic, and mid-term clinical outcomes between direct decompression of BE-TLIF and indirect decompression of OLIF in patients with single level spondylolisthesis.
methodBetween December 2020 and May 2022, patients with single level spondylolisthesis and received either OLIF or BE-TLIF from the authors’ orthopedic departments were selected to enroll in this retrospective study.
resultsA total of 34 patients that underwent single-level OLIF and 30 patients that received single-level BE-TLIF in the spine department of our institutions were included. Both groups had similar demographic parameters. BE-TLIF showed significantly less blood loss compared to that of OLIF (p < 0.001). The OLIF group yielded shorter operation time than the BE-TLIF group (p = 0.002). The improvement in restoration of follow-up segmental lordosis was significantly more in OLIF group than BE-TLIF group (p < 0.001). The OLIF group was significantly better in post-operative VAS back pain (p = 0.035). The cage subsidence rates between the two groups were not significantly different. The follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and overall visual analogue scale were comparable between the 2 groups without significant difference.
conclusionWhile OLIF still offers superior results in restoration of lumbar lordotic angle and short term post-operative back pain, the use of endoscopic technique in BE-TLIF may achieve comparable radiographic and clinical outcomes in cage subsidence rate and follow-up VAS back/leg pain compared to the indirect decompression of OLIF.
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.