ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Classification of iliac vessels and selection of surgical approach and window in oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 based on magnetic resonance imaging.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate how the position of iliac vessels affects the choice of surgical approach (left or right oblique abdominal incision) and window (central or lateral) during L5-S1 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), through imaging anatomy research. Methods: CT and axial T2-weighted MRI at L5-S1 were used to evaluate the iliac vessels' position and classify the central vascular window (CW). Measurements were taken for the central window (CW), distance from the midline of the L5-S1 disc to the vessel's medial surface (DV), and psoas to iliac vein distances (LPV/RPV). Classification was based on the location of the common iliac vein/internal iliac artery: The intervertebral space was divided evenly from anterior to posterior into four zones-I, II, III, and IV. Based on iliac vein positions, patients were classified as follows: Type A (both veins in Zone I, left I/right I), Type B (left I/right II), Type C (left II/right I), Type D (both veins in Zone II, left II/right II), and Other Type (veins in Zone III or IV). A comparative analysis of imaging findings was performed. Results: 302 patients were included (124 Type A, 30 Type B, 62 Type C, 82 Type D), and the remaining 4 patients, whose iliac veins were located in Zone III or IV, were defined as Other Type. Gender differences were observed, with Type A predominantly female. Type A had the smallest CW, while Type D had the largest. Type D showed the largest DV and RDV compared to other types. LPV and RPV were statistically significant between groups, with Type A and B having greater LPV than C and D. Conclusions: Classification based on iliac vessel positioning helps determine the optimal approach for OLIF: Left ATP-OLIF is preferred for Type A and B; Right ATP-OLIF or Left O-ALIF for Type C; Left O-ALIF for Type D. The classification simplifies approach selection, minimizing vascular and nerve damage.
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.