ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2026
Does Anteroposterior Cage Position and Screw Orientation Influence Clinical/Radiographic Outcomes and Complications After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Lateral Plate Fixation?
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of cage anteroposterior position and angulation, as well as plate and screw trajectory, in oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral plate fixation, on clinical and radiographic outcomes along with associated perioperative complications. Methods: A total of 47 patients undergoing OLIF-LP surgery were enrolled. Cases were divided into the anterior position group (APG) or the posterior position group (PPG) based on whether the cage was positioned anterior or posterior to the midline. Data were collected preoperatively and at 3 days, 3 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Radiographic parameters measured included LL, FSL, DH, and FH. Implant-related measurements comprised cage-device angle (CDA), superior screw to endplate angle (SSEA), and inferior screw to endplate angle (ISEA). Clinical outcomes included Back-VAS, Leg-VAS, ODI scores, and perioperative complications, to evaluate the impact of cage position on radiographic and clinical outcomes at different time points. Results: No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes between the groups at any point. Radiographically, the APG showed greater improvement in FSL than the PPG (4.37±3.56° vs. 1.75±3.16°, p=0.012). The APG also had greater loss of FH during follow-up (p=0.024). Thigh/inguinal numbness was the most common complication (38.3%), and was more frequent in the PPG. SSEA positively correlated with FSL at final follow-up (r=0.408, p=0.004). Conclusion: When employing a lateral plate for fixation in OLIF, an anteriorly positioned cage yields superior improvement in FSL, whereas posterior placement more effectively maintains FH, albeit with an increased risk of perioperative neurological complications. Moreover, a larger SSEA was positively associated with improvement in long-term FSL.
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.