ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of clinical efficacy between endoscope-assisted oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.
Article in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscope-assisted oblique lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-OLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases treated at Hebei General Hospital between January 2020 and December 2023. According to the surgical procedure, they were divided into an Endo-OLIF group (30 cases) and a PLIF group (32 cases). The two groups were compared in terms of baseline characteristics, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, complication rate, and relevant imaging parameters (disc height, lumbar lordosis angle, fused-segment lordosis angle, and dural sac area). Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics such as sex, age, affected segment, comorbidities, or body-mass index (BMI) ( Conclusions: The Endo-OLIF technique achieves direct and indirect spinal-canal decompression and restores segmental lumbar lordosis without disrupting the posterior osseous framework or the muscular-ligamentous complex, thereby expanding the surgical indications of conventional OLIF. Both procedures yield satisfactory clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases; however, the Endo-OLIF approach offers the advantages of minimal invasiveness, reduced blood loss, significantly lower early post-operative VAS scores, better restoration of lumbar physiological curvature, faster recovery, and a lower risk of neurological injury. Based on these limited but promising cases, this technique warrants broader clinical application and long-term follow-up.
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.