ArticleBMC surgery2026
Comparison of the efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of double-level lumbar spondylolisthesis combined with spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of double-level lumbar spondylolisthesis combined with spinal stenosis.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 44 patients with double-level lumbar spondylolisthesis combined with spinal stenosis who underwent surgical treatment between April 2013 and August 2021. Patients were divided into PLIF and TLIF groups. Perioperative parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 week, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Radiographic parameters related to sagittal alignment and vertebral slippage were also assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests based on data distribution.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). No major intraoperative complications or implant-related failures were observed. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS scores and ODI at all postoperative time points compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05), with no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05). Radiographic parameters showed significant postoperative improvement in both groups (P < 0.05). Although the TLIF group demonstrated numerically greater improvements in certain sagittal alignment parameters, these differences did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionBoth PLIF and TLIF are effective surgical options for the treatment of double-level lumbar spondylolisthesis combined with spinal stenosis, resulting in significant clinical and radiographic improvement. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between the two techniques. While TLIF may show a trend toward improved restoration of certain sagittal alignment parameters, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.