ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Safety and biological effectiveness of transforaminal (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): a retrospective cohort study including patients with significant comorbidity.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to compare the safety, perioperative outcomes, and radiographic fusion rate of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patient population including highly comorbid patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 268 patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar interbody fusion (L3–L5) between 2017 and 2021. 201 patients underwent TLIF and 67 received OLIF surgery. Demographic, operative, postoperative clinical, and radiographic data were collected. One-year CT and X-ray scans in a subset (n = 157 and n = 174) were used to evaluate bony fusion. Adverse Events (AEs) were categorized using the SAVES-V2 system. Multivariate logistic and linear regressions models were applied to identify predictors of AEs and LOS.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. OLIF demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss, minor perioperative decline in serum Hgb and shorter hospital stay, whereas TLIF had shorter operative times. Early postoperative AEs and reoperation rates did not differ significantly. High-comorbidity patients showed similar safety profiles. The overall one-year fusion rate was high in both groups (CT: 90.9% TLIF vs. 91.5% OLIF on CT- and 92.5% in TLIF, 87% in OLIF on X-ray based measurements). OLIF achieved fusion more frequently within the cage, whereas TLIF more often demonstrated fusion around the cage. Independent predictors of AEs included age, anthropometric factors, and intraoperative blood loss. The regression model showed good discriminatory ability (AUC = 0.735).
conclusionBoth OLIF and TLIF are safe and effective techniques for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions also in medically complex patients. OLIF offers advantages in blood loss and LOS, while TLIF allows shorter operative times. Surgical approach should be individualized based on patient anatomy and surgeon expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41963510What 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.