ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Mid-term effects of posterior versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion on spinopelvic alignment and clinical outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative cohort study.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMid-term evidence directly comparing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) remains limited. It is also unclear whether radiographic restoration relates to disability improvement differently between techniques.
methodsWe retrospectively included 100 patients who underwent one- or two-level fusion between 2018 and 2020 (PLIF, n = 53; OLIF, n = 47). ODI, visual analog scale (VAS), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and standing lateral radiographs were collected preoperatively and at mid-term follow-up (mean follow-up, ~ 52 months). ODI improvement (ΔODI) was defined as ODI_pre-ODI_final. Radiographic parameters included lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, segmental lordosis angle, disc height (DH), and foraminal height (FH). Between-group comparisons were performed, and a covariate-adjusted ANCOVA modeled final ODI with baseline ODI adjustment.
resultsBoth procedures significantly improved ODI, VAS, and JOA from baseline. Unadjusted final ODI did not differ significantly between groups, whereas ΔODI was greater after PLIF (19.6 ± 8.4 vs. 14.6 ± 8.8; P = 0.004). In adjusted ANCOVA, OLIF was associated with a higher final ODI (β = 5.04, 95% CI 1.60-8.49; P = 0.005). Radiographic improvements were observed in both groups; final FH was higher after OLIF. Perioperative complication profiles differed: surgical-related events were more frequent after PLIF, whereas approach-related events were more frequent after OLIF.
conclusionsAt mid-term follow-up, PLIF and OLIF provided sustained improvement in pain and function. PLIF showed greater unadjusted ODI improvement, while baseline-adjusted analyses suggested higher final ODI after OLIF. OLIF achieved a higher final foraminal height.
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.