ArticleAsian spine journal2026
Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral cage placement in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Lumbar interbody fusion is widely employed to treat degenerative spinal conditions. The procedure frequently involves the use of intervertebral cages to enhance segmental stability and facilitate spinal fusion. While bilateral cage placement has traditionally been the standard approach, recent studies have questioned its routine use. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether unilateral cage placement offers comparable safety and efficacy to bilateral placement in lumbar interbody fusion. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases identified eight eligible randomized control trials involving 509 patients. The primary outcome was the spinal fusion rate. Secondary outcomes included surgery-related outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay), patientreported outcomes VAS, ODI, patient satisfaction), and complications. The analysis revealed no significant differences in successful spinal fusion rates between the two groups (p =0.41). Unilateral cage placement was significantly associated with shorter operation time (p <0.0001) and reduced estimated blood loss (p <0.0001). However, the length of hospital stay was not significantly affected by the number of cages used (p =0.05). Patient-reported outcomes, including Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back pain (p =0.61), VAS for leg pain (p =0.64), Oswestry Disability Index score (p =0.18), and patient-reported rate of successful clinical outcomes (p =0.55), exhibited no substantial differences between the two groups. Patients in the unilateral group exhibited a lower overall risk of complications (p =0.03), but no difference in the risk of cage migration was noted between the two groups (p =0.97). Unilateral cage placement for lumbar interbody fusion is as effective as bilateral cage placement in achieving fusion, without compromising patient outcomes. Furthermore, it offers significant advantages, such as decreased operative time, blood loss, and complication risk.
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.