ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion to address pseudarthrosis after prior posterior spinal instrumentation.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLumbar pseudarthrosis revision is challenging for both patients and surgeons, with no standard approach. This study aimed to evaluate radiographic fusion and index-level re-revision rates after revision using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), comparing standalone LLIF (SA-LLIF) and circumferential LLIF with posterior revision (360°-LLIF). Secondary outcomes included perioperative parameters and sagittal alignment.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center cohort study included patients undergoing LLIF for lumbar pseudarthrosis between 2007 and 2023 with ≥ 1-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into SA-LLIF and 360°-LLIF groups. Fusion was assessed at one year using the Bridwell grading system (grades I-II considered fused). Perioperative parameters, re-revision, and sagittal alignment were evaluated.
resultsThirty-eight patients were included (SA-group: n = 26; 360°-group: n = 12). Groups were comparable except for a higher BMI in the 360°-group (p = 0.035). Overall fusion was 84.2%, with rates of 80.8% in SA-LLIF and 91.7% in 360°-LLIF (p = 0.392). No patient required re-revision for non-union; one 360° patient underwent wound revision. Operative time (233 vs. 84 min, p = 0.005), and estimated blood loss (625 vs. 100 mL, p = 0.001) were higher in the 360°-group. Length of stay and sagittal alignment parameters were similar between groups.
conclusionBoth 360°-LLIF and SA-LLIF may represent viable revision strategies for pseudarthrosis after posterior instrumentation, each with distinct advantages. Fusion rates were numerically higher with 360°-LLIF but not statistically different, and no patient in either group required secondary revision surgery for non-union. SA-LLIF was associated with shorter operative times and reduced EBL. Findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472391What 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.