ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review of clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and safety profile.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. 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.
- L5-S1 Anatomic Features Relevant to Minimally Invasive Decompression and Fusion: A Cadaveric and Imaging-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) accesses the disc through a posterolateral extraforaminal corridor that preserves the posterior ligamentous complex and avoids abdominal exposure. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, complications, and surgical indications for ELIF. Methods: PRISMA 2020-conformant review registered in PROSPERO (ID: 1111090). Eligible studies reported clinical or radiographic outcomes of ELIF performed via the posterolateral extraforaminal approach. Extracted variables included indications, operative time, patient-reported outcomes, fusion, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Thirteen retrospective studies (n=518) met inclusion. The quality of studies included was generally fair, as graded by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The most common indication was degenerative disc disease. Mean operative time was 168.7 minutes. Fusion by technique: open pooled mean 98%, minimally invasive pooled mean 84%, and endoscopic 100% in a single series. Pooled VAS back improved as follows: open 6.27 to 2.80 (Δ 3.47; mean follow-up 12.8 months), minimally invasive 8.16 to 3.52 (Δ 4.64; 18.8 months), endoscopic 6.49 to 1.66 (Δ 4.83; 13.2 months). Pooled VAS leg improved: open 6.66 to 2.35 (Δ 4.31, 13.3 months), minimally invasive 8.66 to 2.17 (Δ 6.49; 15.5 months), endoscopic 6.60 to 1.50 (Δ 5.10; 14.2 months). Pooled Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved: open 60.17 to 26.25 (Δ 33.92; 9.5 months), minimally invasive 56.02 to 21.46 (Δ 34.56; 18.8 months), endoscopic 34.59 to 12.19 (Δ 22.40; 13.2 months). Transient radiculopathy was reported at 9.5% and dural tear at 0.5%. Conclusions: As the first systematic review on ELIF, findings indicate it is a safe, effective alternative for lumbar fusion in select patients. Success necessitates favorable extraforaminal anatomy and intraoperative nerve monitoring to minimize complications. Future prospective trials are essential to validate these outcomes and standardize patient selection criteria.
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.