ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparative outcomes of ULIF versus OLIF-LP for lumbar spondylolisthesis: an early efficacy study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Navigation-assisted vs robot -assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective comparative study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and postoperative complications between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) in the surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).
methodWe retrospectively analyzed DLS patients treated with ULIF or OLIF. The basic information of patients, surgical information (operation time, blood loss, hospitalization period), and complications were recorded. Clinical outcomes was comprehensively evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and imaging parameters such as disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), and crosssectional area of the spinal canal (CSA). The intervertebral fusion rate was evaluated according to the Bridwell assessment system 1 year after surgery.
resultThis study included 46 patients, with 25 undergoing unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation and 21 receiving oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with lateral plate fixation. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The OLIF group exhibited statistically significant reductions in both operative duration and intraoperative blood loss when compared to the ULIF group (79.05 ± 5.16 min vs. 123.40 ± 8.72 min; 39.81 ± 4.09 mL vs. 91.40 ± 7.02 mL, P < 0.05). Postoperative assessments revealed that OLIF patients exhibited superior early outcomes, with lower VAS scores for low back pain and improved ODI scores at 7 days post-surgery. However, these differences were no longer evident by the 3-month follow-up. Both surgical approaches significantly enhanced DH, FH and CSA compared to preoperative values, with no notable intergroup differences observed during follow-up. The fusion rates were similar between the two techniques (OLIF: 90.48% vs. ULIF: 92.31%, P > 0.05). Complications in the OLIF group included 2 cases of cage subsidence and 2 instances of lumbosacral plexus injury. In the ULIF group, adverse events comprised 2 cases of cage subsidence, 1 screw malposition, 1 endplate injury, and 1 nerve injury. No statistically significant difference in complication rates was found between the groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionBoth ULIF and OLIF are effective methods for the treatment of DLS. Compared with OLIF, ULIF has a longer operation time, more blood loss, and a higher risk of dural injury, but their clinical effects are comparable.
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.