ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bone cement-augmented vs. conventional pedicle screws for osteoporotic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A finite element-based comparative dynamic biomechanical study of a novel oblique lateral locking plate system (OLLPS) versus traditional internal fixations for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) under whole-body vibration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCage subsidence is a common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), particularly in elderly patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. While bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPS) is effective in reducing subsidence, it is associated with longer operative times, increased blood loss, and greater tissue trauma. In contrast, anterolateral fixation (AF) is less invasive but linked to higher subsidence rates. Ensuring both minimal invasiveness and adequate stability in OLIF-assisted fixation remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combining AF with cement augmentation (AF + CA) in reducing cage subsidence and improving clinical outcomes compared with AF and BPS.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 elderly patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with OLIF. Patients were divided into three groups: AF + CA (32 patients), AF (32 patients), and BPS (74 patients). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for cage subsidence after OLIF.
resultsAt 1 year postoperatively, the disc height of the AF + CA group was significantly greater than that of the AF group. The cage subsidence rate in the AF + CA group was 24.3%, significantly lower than that in the AF group (48.8%, p < 0.05) and comparable to the BPS group (30.4%). Survivorship curve analysis showed better outcomes in reducing cage subsidence in the AF + CA group compared with the AF group, with no significant difference between the AF + CA and BPS groups. Compared with the AF + CA and BPS groups, the AF group had significantly higher grades and severity of cage subsidence. Fusion rates at 1 year were 91.9% in the AF + CA group, 90.2% in the AF group, and 95.1% in the BPS group, with no significant differences. The AF + CA group had significantly shorter operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, lower VAS scores at 3 days and 1 year postoperatively, and lower ODI scores at 3 days and 3 months compared with the BPS group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that AF was a significant risk factor for cage subsidence, with an odds ratio of 3.399 compared with AF + CA.
conclusionsAF + CA effectively reduces cage subsidence in OLIF surgeries, offering results comparable to BPS while providing advantages such as shorter surgical time, reduced blood loss, and improved early postoperative outcomes. AF + CA is a viable alternative, especially for elderly patients with comorbidities who may not tolerate the longer operative durations or greater blood loss associated with BPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.