ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Lumbar interbody fusion via anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review for surgeons.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Anterior column lumbar interbody fusion using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF)/anterior-to-psoas fusion (ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), or combination technique allows insertion of a wide-footprint interbody cage and provides immediate segmental stability, indirect neural decompression, lower risk of subsidence, access for disc preparation, the ability to use a large volume of graft, and restoration of coronal and sagittal balance. Blood loss is usually less than with posterior fusion procedures, except for rare cases of severe vascular injury. The objective of this review was to compare the ALIF, OLIF/ATP, and LLIF techniques to provide a contemporary pragmatic guide for spine surgeons. Methods: PubMed and Ovid Medline databases were searched to identify English-language studies published from 2000 to 2024. The search terms were "anterior", "fusion", "interbody", "lateral", "lumbar", and "oblique". We included studies describing the indications, approaches, patient positioning, surgical technique, learning curve, complications, radiation exposure, need for supplemental fixation, and clinical and radiologic outcomes of ALIF, OLIF/ATP, and LLIF procedures. Key Content and Findings: This review compared the ALIF, OLIF/ATP, and LLIF techniques regarding patient factors, anesthetic factors, surgical factors, operative efficiency, surgical risks, and economic factors. We focused on differences between techniques to help clinicians choose between procedures and identified the preferred procedure(s) at each spinal level. We supplemented data from the literature with practical information obtained from our substantial clinical experience with these procedures. Conclusions: ALIF, OLIF/ATP, and LLIF are all effective techniques for anterior interbody fusion, which provide very good long-term clinical outcomes, excellent fusion rates, and low but specific complication rates.
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.