ArticleBMC surgery2025
Efficacy observation of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) in treating severe spinal stenosis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsRetrospectively collected 83 patients diagnosed with severe lumbar spinal stenosis and underwent surgical treatment (OLIF or modified TLIF) in our hospital from January 2022 to June 2024. Routine preoperative X-ray, CT, and MRI examinations were performed. Based on the surgical method, the two groups were divided as follows: Group A: modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), Group B: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Data including age, gender, BMI, preoperative and postoperative VAS scores, ODI scores, differences in spinal canal cross-sectional area (mm²), differences in intervertebral disc height (mm²), and differences in intervertebral foramen area (mm²) were collected from both groups and analyzed.
resultsTwo groups of patients were compared in terms of age, gender, BMI index, preoperative VAS score, and preoperative ODI index, and no statistically significant differences were found (P > 0.05), indicating comparability. No significant difference was found in the comparison of postoperative VAS scores between the two groups (P > 0.05), suggesting that the efficacy of the two groups was comparable; there were statistically significant differences in operation time and postoperative ODI index (P < 0.05), indicating that Group B had a shorter operation time and better postoperative recovery. There were statistically significant differences in the comparison of the difference in vertebral canal cross-sectional area and the difference in intervertebral foramen area (P < 0.05), suggesting that although the vertebral canal cross-sectional area of Group B was effectively increased, Group B was inferior to Group A in improving vertebral canal cross-sectional area.
conclusionOLIF technique can be used to treat severe lumbar spinal stenosis, and it is safe, minimally invasive, and effective. Although the improvement in the cross-sectional area of the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen in group B was not as significant as in group A, its postoperative functional recovery was better than that of group A. In cases of spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis, the OLIF technique often results in a more significant expansion of the spinal canal, but attention should be paid to the possibility of the superior articular process tip compressing the exiting nerve root after reduction.
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.