ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Impact of cage position in posterior lumbar interbody fusion on cage subsidence in patients with asymmetric Modic changes and analysis of related risk factors.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the influence of interbody cage position in PLIF on subsidence risk among asymmetric Modic changes (AMC) patients and identify associated risk factors.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 69 AMC patients undergoing single-level PLIF (January 2022-December 2023, single-surgeon cohort). Postoperative X-ray categorized patients into Modic Same Side (MSS) and Modic Opposite Side (MOS) groups based on cage position. Collected data encompassed demographics, surgical parameters, imaging metrics, and clinical outcomes. Pearson correlation, multiple regression, and ROC curve analysis (predicting subsidence ≥ 25%) were performed using SPSS (significance: P < 0.05).
resultsCage subsidence rates did not differ significantly between MOS and MSS groups at any follow-up (P > 0.05). Both groups exhibited significant VAS/ODI improvement (P < 0.001), with no intergroup differences. Pearson analysis revealed significant correlations between 1 year subsidence and Modic grade, BMI, blood loss, and 3 month subsidence. Multiple regression confirmed Modic grade and 3 month subsidence as independent predictors of 1 year subsidence (P < 0.05). ROC analysis determined a 3 month subsidence cutoff of 12.5% optimally predicted 1 year subsidence ≥ 25% (AUC = 0.786, P < 0.001).
conclusionCage position does not significantly affect subsidence in PLIF for AMC patients, with PLIF effectively alleviating symptoms. Higher Modic grades correlated with reduced subsidence. BMI and blood loss are independent predictors. Early subsidence > 12.5% at 3 months predicts significant risk (≥ 25%) at 1 year, underscoring the necessity of early radiographic surveillance for timely intervention.
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.