ReviewCureus2026
Interplay of Anatomy and Surgical Approach: A Comparative Review of Neurovascular Risk in Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
Degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine, such as disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis, represent a significant global health burden, frequently leading to chronic pain, neurological deficits, and diminished quality of life. Traditional open surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion, while effective, often involve extensive soft tissue dissection, which can lead to considerable blood loss, prolonged recovery times, and muscle damage. In response to these challenges, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have rapidly evolved, aiming to achieve comparable clinical outcomes with reduced iatrogenic tissue injury. Among the prominent MIS strategies for lumbar interbody fusion, two approaches have gained significant traction: lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), which encompasses techniques such as the direct lateral transpsoas interbody fusion (LTIF), and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Both techniques offer distinct advantages by providing access to the lumbar disc space from a corridor largely anterior to the posterior spinal elements, thereby minimizing disruption to the paraspinal musculature and bony structures. However, these benefits come with unique anatomical challenges. The success and safety of both LLIF/LTIF and OLIF are intrinsically linked to a precise understanding and careful navigation of the retroperitoneal space, particularly concerning the intricate lumbar plexus and associated major vascular structures. The proximity of vital nerves and vessels to the surgical corridors presents a significant risk of iatrogenic injury, which can lead to severe neurological deficits, vascular complications, and compromise patient outcomes. Furthermore, the inherent anatomical variability of the lumbar plexus and vascular structures among individuals adds another layer of complexity to these approaches, necessitating meticulous preoperative planning and intraoperative vigilance. This comparative review aims to synthesize the current literature on the distinct anatomical considerations and associated neurovascular risks encountered during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF/LTIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approaches. By elucidating the specific anatomical challenges of each technique and the strategies employed to mitigate complications, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview for clinicians and researchers involved in the field of minimally invasive spinal surgery.
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.