ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Cage.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2026. 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.
- Early mechanical outcomes of two expandable interbody cages in minimally invasive TLIF: a comparative single-surgeon study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 surgical approaches for achieving arthrodesis and restoring alignment. Novel expandable interbody technology may provide an advantage for TLIF procedures. Limited comparative data exist for LLIF with static interbody cages and TLIF with expandable interbody cages. This study aimed to examine the differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes between these procedures.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis comparing single-level LLIF with static interbody cages and TLIFs with expandable interbody cages performed at our institution. Demographic, operative, radiographic, and patient-reported data were collected. Upright radiographic images were used to assess pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index and minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
resultsA total of 163 patients, 75 in the TLIF group and 88 in the LLIF group, were included in this study (mean age: 63.3 ± 12.0 years; 54.8% women). Mean follow-up was 306.2 ± 161.4 days for the TLIF group and 502.3 ± 308.0 days for the LLIF group (
conclusionsLLIF resulted in greater restoration of neuroforaminal height and segmental lordosis, as well as a modest advantage in lumbar lordosis. In addition, a significantly greater proportion of patients who underwent LLIF achieved MCID. TLIF was a significant predictor of subsidence when controlling for confounding factors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With the advent of expandable interbodies in TLIF, our findings demonstrate suboptimal radiographic and patient-reported outcomes in comparison to LLIF with static interbody cages. Surgeons should exercise caution regarding utilizing expandable interbody technology during TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.