ArticleCureus2025
CT-Mapped Fusion Patterns After 360° Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: High Facet and Interbody Fusion Rates With Limited Clinical Correlates.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDegenerative spondylolisthesis is a common cause of low back pain and disability. We evaluated fusion rates across predefined lumbar regions and their association with clinical outcomes after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We aimed to compare CT-confirmed fusion across predefined anatomical zones and to assess baseline-to-12-month changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 88 patients who underwent 360° TLIF at the Mexican National Rehabilitation Institute (January 2017-May 2022). Fusion at seven anatomical zones was assessed on a 12-month follow-up CT. Patient-reported outcomes at 12 months included the ODI and the RMDQ.
resultsOperations most commonly involved L4-L5 (38; 43.1%), followed by L4-L5+L5-S1 (31; 35.3%), L3-L4+L4-L5 (12; 13.7%), L5-S1 (5; 5.9%), and L2-L3+L3-L4+L4-L5 (2; 2.0%). Fusion success was high, particularly for interbody fusion (79; 89.6%, p < 0.0001) and facet joint fusion. Complications were uncommon (8; 9.1%): pedicle fracture (2; 2.3%), durotomy (1; 1.1%), dural injury (1; 1.1%), transient nerve alteration on neuromonitoring (2; 2.3%), L4 spinous-process fracture (1; 1.1%), and screwdriver breakage with retained fragment (1; 1.1%). Fusion location/number did not correlate with postoperative ODI (p = 0.7124) or RMDQ (p = 0.4255). Several fusion types were more often successful in female patients (p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: TLIF achieved high CT-confirmed fusion-especially interbody and facet-yet the anatomical distribution/number of fused zones did not influence 12-month disability (ODI/RMDQ). Results likely reflect surgical technique and patient optimization rather than fusion location. Interpretation should be cautious given the retrospective single-center design, 12-month follow-up, lack of bone-quality data, and exploratory multiple comparisons.
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.