Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has produced good results for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), its efficacy vis-a-vis posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of OLIF and PLIF for the treatment of LDDs. METHODS: A comprehensive assessment of the literature was conducted, and the quality of retrieved studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Clinical parameters included the visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for pain, disability, and functional levels. Statistical analysis related to operative time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, lumbar lordosis angle, postoperative disc height, and complication rates was performed. The PROSPERO number for the present systematic review is CRD42023406695. RESULTS: In total, 574 patients (287 for OLIF, 287 for PLIF) from eight studies were included. The combined mean postoperative difference in ODI and lumbar VAS scores was - 1.22 and - 0.43, respectively. In postoperative disc, height between OLIF and PLIF was 2.05. The combined advantage ratio of the total surgical complication rate and the mean difference in lumbar lordosis angle between OLIF and PLIF were 0.46 and 1.72, respectively. The combined mean difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between OLIF and PLIF was - 128.67 and - 2.32, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both the OLIF and PLIF interventions showed good clinical efficacy for LDDs. However, OLIF demonstrated a superior advantage in terms of intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, degree of postoperative disc height recovery, and postoperative complication rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".