ArticleBJS open2025
Muscle damage in oblique lumbar interbody fusion and unilateral biportal endoscopic-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degeneration diseases: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early MRI-Detected Interspinous Ligament Region Edema Is Associated With Delayed Pain Recovery and Persistent Low Back Pain After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative study of two minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions for single-segment lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIatrogenic injury and approach-related complications in lumbar fusion surgery have become significant concerns. This study aims to assess the muscle damage with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) compared with unilateral biportal endoscopic-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF). This assessment will guide better clinical surgical choice in lumbar degeneration diseases.
methodsThis was a retrospective study comparing OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation and UBE-TLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screws under navigation from January 2021 to December 2023. Individuals with single-level degenerative lumbar disease participated in the study. This study compared the baseline and perioperative parameters (blood loss, operation time, and haematological indicators) and clinical outcome (visual analogue scale scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, fusion rate, and complications). Measurements of the total cross-sectional area of psoas muscles and paraspinal muscles were obtained using regions of interest defined by manual tracing.
resultsThe cohort comprised 192 patients: 112 underwent OLIF (64 female; mean age 65.1 years) and 80 underwent UBE-TLIF (44 female; mean age 64 years). The operation time (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), and creatine kinase (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the OLIF group than in the UBE-TLIF group. The visual analogue scale score of the back was lower in the OLIF group than in the UBE-TLIF group (P < 0.001), whereas the visual analogue scale score of the leg was higher in the OLIF group than in the UBE-TLIF group (P < 0.001). The changes in the total cross-sectional area in the psoas muscles were significantly higher in the OLIF group than in the UBE-TLIF group (P < 0.001). The changes in the total cross-sectional area in the paraspinal muscles were significantly lower in the OLIF group than in the UBE-TLIF group (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in the fatty infiltration of the paraspinal muscles between the two groups (P < 0.001). The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.874).
conclusionWith OLIF there were lower creatine kinase levels, less blood loss, and less damage to paraspinal muscles. Therefore, in cases where both procedures are equally appropriate, OLIF is safer and less damaging to muscles and is the first choice for patients.
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.