ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Evaluation of three methods of coaxial endoscopic lumbar fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore the clinical outcomes of coaxial endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (CELIF) with three distinct fusion methods in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of patients who underwent CELIF surgery to treat lumbar degenerative diseases from January 2018 to January 2020. Patients were divided into three groups as follows: patients with the deproteinized and demineralized bovine bone fusion cage (heterogeneous compact internal fixators (HCIF) cage) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation were included in Group HCIF-four (n = 23); patients with HCIF cage and unilateral pedicle screw, combined with contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPS + TLFS) fixation, were included in Group HCIF-three (n = 28); and patients with height-adjustable metal fusion cage and BPS fixation were included in Group metal-four (n = 26). Clinical symptoms were evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). In addition, radiological outcomes were assessed via intervertebral height (IH), neuroforamen height (NH), and segmental angle (SA) prior to surgery, 7 days after surgery, and at the last follow-up. All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptoms and imaging findings after surgery. At the last follow-up, the VAS, ODI, and imaging indices of Group metal-four were significantly better than those of Group HCIF-three (P < 0.05), whereas Group HCIF-four values were intermediate. The interbody fusion rates for Groups metal-four, HCIF-three, and HCIF-four were 88.46%, 71.43%, and 82.61%, respectively (P = 0.009 < 0.05), and the satisfaction rates were 96.15%, 71.43%, and 82.61%, respectively (P = 0.078 > 0.05). CELIF is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical intervention for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Among the three analyzed groups, the height-adjustable metal fusion cage combined with BPS fixation may provide superior clinical and fusion outcomes. HCIF cage combined with UPS + TLFS may be associated with lower fusion rates and higher subsidence, although further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41612082What 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.