ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Early pain relief and segmental realignment after two-stage lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior instrumentation in degenerative lumbar pathology.
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
Two-stage circumferential fusion incorporating lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is increasingly used to treat degenerative lumbar disorders, yet evidence on perioperative safety, clinical benefit, and optimal sequencing remains limited. We evaluated clinical outcomes, radiographic realignment, perioperative morbidity, and predictors of complications in patients undergoing staged LLIF with posterior fixation. We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients (mean age 67.7 years) who underwent two-stage lumbar fusion, either LLIF followed by posterior instrumentation or vice versa. We assessed pain (NRS scale), segmental lordosis (SL), blood loss, ICU and hospital length of stay, and complications. Subgroup analysis compared LLIF-first vs. posterior-first sequencing. Logistic regression identified predictors of complications. Patients showed a median age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index [ACCI] of 3.0. LLIF was performed first in 65%. Mean NRS pain scores improved from 6.5 preoperatively to 4.1 after the first stage (p = 0.006) and to 3.1 after the second (p < 0.001). Early pain relief tended to be greater with LLIF-first (ΔNRS - 2.46 vs. - 1.75). Posterior-first sequencing involved more instrumented levels (median 4 vs. 2, p = 0.014), greater blood loss (628.6 vs. 142.3 mL, p = 0.01), and longer hospitalization (18.9 vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.001). LLIF-first yielded greater intervertebral height gain (6.5 vs. 3.7 mm, p = 0.05). SL improved mainly at upper lumbar levels (+ 6.4°). ACCI was the only independent predictor of complications (OR 2.6 per point; p = 0.045). Staged lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation appears to be a feasible treatment option for complex degenerative lumbar disease, associated with early pain relief and segmental alignment changes. Performing the interbody fusion as the first stage may offer potential advantages; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size of our cohort.
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.