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
Successful execution of preoperative lumbar alignment planning: reliability of the L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePreoperative planning for lumbar fusion involves careful consideration of segmental and regional spinopelvic alignment. However, whether anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) reliably delivers planned lordosis is incompletely understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of L5-S1 ALIF to restore regional L4-S1 and segmental L5-S1 lordosis according to preoperative plan.
methodsAdult patients who underwent L5-S1 ALIF with posterior fusion by a single surgeon, had a documented preoperative plan, and received UNiD patient-specific rods were included. Demographics, preoperative and 3-month postoperative spinopelvic alignment, and deviation from ideal postoperative alignment were assessed. Two one-sample t-tests (TOST) were performed to evaluate equivalence of planned and postoperative lordosis. Sub-analysis by L4-L5 correction status (no fusion, screws, interbody) was also performed.
resultsAmong 102 patients, mean age was 61.2 years, 45% were female, mean levels fused were 4.5. Preoperatively, mean PI-LL was 10.8°, SVA was 61.6 mm, L4-S1 was 29.8°, L5-S1 was 11.2°, and L4-S1 LDI was 63%. Postoperatively, mean PI-LL was corrected to 6.4°, SVA to 33.5 mm, L4-S1 to 38.3°, L5-S1 to 20.7°, and L4-S1 LDI to 79%, and reciprocal TK change was 8.3° (all p < 0.05). Mean L4-S1 lordosis was 1.1° below plan and L5-S1 lordosis was 0.8° above plan (p > 0.05). TOST testing revealed that mean plan-achieved difference for L4-S1 and L5-S1 lordosis were statistically equivalent within the predefined equivalence margin of ± 2.5° (p < 0.05). In total, 76% and 95% of ideally planned patients achieved at least 35° L4-S1 lordosis and 50% L4-S1 LDI postoperatively, respectively. Fusion approach at L4-L5 was not associated with postoperative L4-S1 lordosis or plan success (p > 0.05).
conclusionL5-S1 ALIF delivers reliable early correction of regional L4-S1 and segmental L5-S1 lordosis that closely matches preoperative planning parameters, regardless of fusion technique at L4-L5. The reliability of other fusion techniques at L4-S1 to achieve planned lordosis should be similarly examined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828575What 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.