Vit Kotheeranurak, Jin-Sung Kim, Inbo Han, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Thanapol Ultarnpatumros, Chinati Puinongpo, Javier Quillo-Olvera, Lei Jiang, Christoph Siepe, Worawat Limthongkul, Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Surachat Jaroenwareekul
Neurospine 2026;23(3):605-624. Published online July 31, 2026
Objective Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has expanded rapidly, but existing spine registries do not consistently capture ESS-specific technical variables, ultra-early recovery trajectories, selective imaging validation, or dissemination-related learning-curve effects. This review synthesizes established spine registry models, contemporary consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up approaches to propose a candidate ESS-specific registry framework and preliminary Minimum Data Set (MDS) for future validation.
Methods A structured narrative review was conducted on national and multinational spine registries, relevant consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up models. Sources were reviewed with emphasis on governance, data architecture, workflow design, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integration, follow-up structure, data linkage, validation strategies, and implementation feasibility.
Results Established registries provide a methodological foundation for benchmarking, complication surveillance, longitudinal PROM capture, and real-world evidence generation. However, ESS requires modular augmentation of existing registry infrastructures to capture approach-specific operative details, early recovery, selective imaging phenotypes, and governance-controlled maturity indicators. The proposed candidate MDS is organized into 4 domains: (1) baseline case-mix and phenotyping, (2) procedure-specific technical and perioperative variables, (3) selective quantitative imaging and morphometric validation, and (4) structured longitudinal outcome surveillance. The framework prioritizes an essential core dataset while separating recommended, optional, research-oriented, and governance-controlled modules, including digitally enabled early follow-up, opioid-related outcomes, radiation exposure, advanced imaging, and learning-curve variables.
Conclusion A candidate ESS-specific registry framework may support harmonized data capture, real-world evidence generation, quality feedback, and future registry-based research. Formal Delphi consensus, multicenter feasibility testing, and staged integration into existing spine registry infrastructures are required before broader implementation.
Objective To quantify the effect of different hip positions on lumbar lordosis (LL) and spinopelvic parameters in the right lateral decubitus position (RLDP) and identify the configuration that most closely replicates physiologic standing alignment during lateral lumbar interbody fusion in minimally invasive spinal surgery.
Methods Thirty healthy volunteers (15 males, 15 females; mean age, 27.8±8.6 years) underwent lateral lumbar radiographs in standing position and 5 RLDP configurations: neutral hips (NN), 30° flexion of both hips (30FF), 30° flexion of the right hip with left hip neutral (30FN), 60° flexion of both hips (60FF), and 60° flexion of the right hip with left hip neutral (60FN). LL, pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic incidence (PI) were measured. Each position was compared to standing using paired t-tests. Intra- and interobserver reliability were evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
Results LL decreased significantly in all RLDP positions compared with standing (51.1°±3.8°). The 30FN position showed the smallest change (ΔLL=-4.9°, p<0.001), whereas 60FF showed the greatest (ΔLL=-15.0°, p<0.001). In 30FN, PT decreased (p=0.013) and SS increased (p=0.003), indicating mild anterior pelvic rotation. PI showed minimal variation across positions. Intra- and interobserver ICCs ranged from 0.92 to 0.99, confirming high measurement reliability.
Conclusion Hip position significantly influences lumbar and pelvic alignment in RLDP. Among tested configurations, the 30FN position (right hip flexed 30°, left neutral) showed the smallest numerical deviation from standing alignment and spinopelvic harmony relative to standing in RLDP.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Reply Letter: Reconsidering Intraoperative Hip Positioning in Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion – A Commentary on “Optimal Positioning for
Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion” Worawat Limthongkul, Natavut Prasertkul, Pakawas Praisarnti, Maruay Tanayavong, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Vit Kotheeranurak Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 756. CrossRef
Reconsidering Intraoperative Hip Positioning in Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion – A Commentary on “Optimal Positioning for Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion” Jiayi Chen Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 754. CrossRef
Comprehensive analysis of risk factors for degenerative spinal deformity Quankai Wang, Junhui Chu, Weiyu Jiang European Journal of Medical Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between 2 motion preservation surgeries, cervical disc replacement (CDR) and posterior endoscopic cervical decompression (PECD), for unilateral cervical radiculopathy.
Methods Between February 2018 and December 2020, 60 patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy who underwent either CDR or PECD were retrospectively recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and satisfaction rates. The radiographic outcome was index level motion. Intraoperative data, complications, and hospital stay were collected. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results Patients undergoing CDR or PECD were included, with 30 cases in each group. Matched pairs were compared in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements. CDR was associated with shorter operative times, whereas PECD resulted in less intraoperative blood loss. The total complication rate was 5%. NDI and VAS for neck and arm were significantly improved in both groups, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of good and excellent exceeded 87% in both groups. CDR was superior to PECD in the restoration of disc height. Early postoperative follow-up showed no significant difference in terms of index level motion. PECD demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stays and quicker return-to-work times (p<0.05).
Conclusion PECD achieved equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with CDR when the certain criteria for surgery were met. Both techniques demonstrated the potential to maintain index level motion. Additionally, PECD resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and faster return-to-work times. Conversely, CDR offered shorter operative times and better restoration of disc height.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for cervicothoracic junction disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled trial Huaibin Wang, Hui Li, Rushuo Wei, Hao Yan, Ruzhan Yao, Weiqiang Liu, Ling Li Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty versus minimally invasive posterior cervical procedures as motion preserving surgeries for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Jia Yi Loh, Xian Jun Ngoh, Zhihong Chew, Yee Gen Lim, Michael Janssen, Jiang Lei European Spine Journal.2026; 35(9): 5272. CrossRef
Comparison of surgical outcomes between posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy and microscope-assisted ACDF in patients with single-level unilateral radicular symptomatology of cervical disc herniation: a single-center retrospective study Yin He, Jing Zhang, Dawei Ren, Tianping Xi, Zhilin Li European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Outcomes and Patient Perspectives in Full Endoscopic Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Sung Tan Cho, Ayush Sharma, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Meng-Huang Wu, Lo Cho Yau, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Jin Lee Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 81. CrossRef
Advancing the future of endoscopic spine surgery Wongthawat Liawrungrueang Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): IX. CrossRef
Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Thanadol Tangdamrongtham, Worawat Limthongkul, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Stephen J. Kerr, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Vit Kotheeranurak
Neurospine 2024;21(3):820-832. Published online September 30, 2024
Objective Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), performed using a retroperitoneal approach, can lead to complications related to the approach, such as lumbar sympathetic chain injury (LSCI). Although LSCI is a common complication of OLIF, its reported incidence varies across studies due to an absence of specific diagnostic criteria. Moreover, research on the risk factors of postoperative sympathetic chain injuries after OLIF remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the incidence, and identify independent risk factors for LSCI, in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal diseases who underwent OLIF.
Methods Between October 2020 and August 2023, a retrospective review was conducted at our institute on 200 patients who underwent OLIF at 1 to 4 consecutive spinal levels (L1–5) for degenerative spinal diseases including spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, degenerative scoliosis. We excluded those with infections, trauma, tumors, and lower extremity edema/warmth due to other causes. The patients were categorized into 2 groups: those with and without LSCI symptoms. Demographic data, operative data, and pre- and postoperative parameters were evaluated for their association with LSCI using a univariate logistic regression model. Variables with a p-value <0.1 in the univariate analysis were included in a multivariate model to identify the independent risk factors.
Results Thirty-five of 200 patients (17.5%) developed LSCI symptoms after OLIF. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that prolonged retraction time, particularly exceeding 31.5 miniutes, remained an independent risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 12.59; p<0.001).
Conclusion This study demonstrated that prolonged retraction time was an independent risk factor for LSCI following OLIF, particularly when it exceeded 31.5 minutes. Protecting the lumbar sympathetic chain during surgery and minimizing retraction time are crucial to avoiding LSCI following OLIF.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Chirurgisches Management benigner paravertebraler Tumoren – Fallserie und Literaturübersicht Moritz Thiel, Osama Ali, Karsten Wiebe, Walter Stummer, Michael Schwake Zentralblatt für Chirurgie - Zeitschrift für Allgemeine, Viszeral-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie.2026; 151(03): 300. CrossRef
Technical Feasibility and Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Large-Footprint Cage via Tubular Approach: A Novel Surgical Technique Ayush Sharma, Shubham Kadam, Nandan Marathe, Avi Rangala, Sourav L. Das, Ajit Rampure Asian Journal of Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
A comparative study of O-arm navigation-assisted OLIF 360 versus traditional OLIF combined with Mazor Renaissance robot-assisted posterior fixation for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis: clinical and radiographic outcomes Yuanrun Wei, Haixin Wei, Lei Li, Wenhao Zhao, Hao Zhang, Xuexiao Ma, Yan Wang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Advances in the mechanisms and nursing strategies for sympathetic abdominal distension following oblique lateral interbody fusion Pingyao Yu, Huiyun Chen, Limei. Du, Huanping. Zhu, Xueping Wang, Xiaoming. Qiu Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery.2026; 46: 102390. CrossRef
Association of weight change with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in obese participants with cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study Jufen Zhang, Rudolph Schutte, Barbara Pierscionek Heart.2025; 111(10): 454. CrossRef
Incidence and Risk Factors of Postoperative Ileus in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Study Young-Seok Lee, Myeong Jin Ko, Seung Won Park Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 222. CrossRef
Complications of anterior-to-psoas and their avoidance and treatment Chang Hwa Ham, Woo-Keun Kwon, Joo Han Kim Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; 37(1): 101161. CrossRef
Worawat Limthongkul, Bandid Chaiwongwattana, Stephen J. Kerr, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige
Neurospine 2024;21(3):845-855. Published online September 30, 2024
Objective Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive procedure for stabilizing the spine and indirectly decompressing the neural elements. There is sparse data on unsatisfactory outcomes that require additional interventions (surgery or intervention) after OLIF. This study aimed to identify the causes, and risk factors of these reintervention.
Methods This was a single-center retrospective study of the patients who underwent the OLIF procedure from June 2016 to March 2023. Several clinical and radiographic parameters were studied. We also analyzed associations between several potential risk factors and the reintervention following OLIF.
Results A total of 231 patients were included. Over an average of 2.5 years of follow-up, 28 patients (12.1%) required a reintervention. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) was the most common cause of reintervention. The risk factors associated with reintervention were previous surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21–16.33; p=0.02) and high preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.08; p=0.03). Although increasing the duration of follow-up was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was consistent with an increased risk of reintervention with longer follow-up (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94–1.50).
Conclusion This study showed that patients with prior lumbar surgery and high preoperative ODI scores were more likely to require additional intervention after the OLIF procedure. In addition, an increasing duration of follow-up was associated with an increased risk of reintervention. The most common reason for reintervention was ASD after OLIF.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The iLLIF score: a predictive success scoring system for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Narat Virojanawat, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Worawat Limthongkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Weerasak Singhatanadgige European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Contralateral Nerve Root Injuries After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Causes, Treatment, and Prevention Jun Seok Lee, Su Hun Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Chi Hyung Lee, Chang Hyeun Kim, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee World Neurosurgery.2026; 215: 125326. CrossRef
Three Cases of Indirect Decompression Failure Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Requiring Early Direct Posterior Decompression: Analysis of Etiologies and Literature Review Satoshi Hattori, Satoru Matsutani Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases.
Methods Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured.
Results Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different.
Conclusion Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Is Congenital Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis a Contraindication for Indirect Decompression by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Thada Nashinoros, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Vit Kotheeranurak, Worawat Limthongkul Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(5): 2117. CrossRef
The Role of Hounsfield Units in Predicting Cage Subsidence After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Chen Zhang, Zachary Chu, Jonathan Boey, Reuben Chee Cheong Soh World Neurosurgery.2026; 208: 124836. CrossRef
Mid-term effects of posterior versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion on spinopelvic alignment and clinical outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative cohort study Haixu Wang, Wei Du, Li Zhang, Xiaoping Wang, Rong Chen, Lanchun Ren, Yue Zheng, Zhe Lin, Zhiyong Hou Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
The iLLIF score: a predictive success scoring system for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Narat Virojanawat, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Worawat Limthongkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Weerasak Singhatanadgige European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Factors affecting outcomes of indirect decompression after oblique and lateral lumbar interbody fusions Kyle M M Behrens, Hossein Elgafy World Journal of Orthopedics.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
A systematic review of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery with interbody fusion Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Ho-Jin Lee, Sang Bum Kim, Sang-Min Park, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Hyun-Jin Park Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): 275. CrossRef
Objective We introduced a new preoperative method, the “expanded surgical corridor,” to evaluate the actual safety corridor, which may expand the possibility of performing oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF).
Methods Axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images at the L4–5 disc level of 511 lumbar degenerative disease patients was evaluated. The distance between the medial edge of the left-sided psoas muscle and the major artery was measured as the conventional surgical corridor (CSc). The distance between the major vein and lumbar plexus was measured as the expanded surgical corridor (ESc).
Results The mean CSc and ESc were 13.9 ± 8.20 and 37.43 ± 10.1 mm, respectively. No surgical corridor was found in 7.05% of CSc and 1.76% of ESc, small corridor ( ≤ 1 cm) was found in 27.40% of CSc and 0.59% of ESc, moderate corridor (1–2 cm) was found in 42.07% of CSc and 1.96% of ESc, and large corridor ( > 2 cm) was found in 23.48% of CSc and 95.69% of ESc. A total of 33.83% (45 of 133) of whom were preoperatively categorized as having a limited surgical corridor by conventional measurement, underwent OLIF L4–5 successfully.
Conclusion By using the ESc, only 2.35% were categorized as having a limited surgical corridor. The other 97.65% of the patients had an approachable corridor that could be successfully operated by experienced spine surgeons who employ meticulous surgical dissection and thorough understanding of the anatomical structures. The ESc may represent true accessibility to the disc space for OLIF, particularly at the L4–5 level.
Advantages of a new improved oblique Retractor in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study Jun Mo, Siping Zhang, Zhanjun Ma, Jianjiang Li, Yifei Huang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Ibero-Latin American Consensus on Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (L2-L5): A Modified Delphi Study Federico Landriel, Alderico Girão Campos de Barros, Rubén Alejandro Morales Ciancio, Alfonso Vega, Alisson R. Teles, Álvaro Silva González, Carlos Abraham Arellanes-Chávez, David Suárez-Fernández, Gerd Bordon, Javier Gutierrez, José Augusto Malheiros, Jua World Neurosurgery.2025; 203: 124490. CrossRef
Comparison of midterm outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral vertebral body screw fixation for single level spondylolisthesis Fu-Cheng Kao, Shih-Feng Hung, Yu-Pao Hsu, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Hung-Kang Wu, Ming-Te Cheng, Kuang-Kai Hsueh, Po-Yuan Lin, Ching-Hsiao Yu BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Psoas Muscle Morphology Arash Emami, George Abdelmalek, Iciar Davila, Stuart Changoor, Neil Patel, Daniel Coban, Nikhil Sahai, Kumar Sinha, Ki Hwang Spine.2024; 49(24): E418. CrossRef
Objective No consensus criteria have been established regarding ideal candidates for indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and contributing factors of indirect decompression failure were rarely reported. We aim to investigate the success rate of indirect decompression by LLIF with proposed selection criteria and identify risk factors associated with indirect decompression failure, defined as persistent pain requiring revision with direct decompression.
Methods Data from 191 patients undergoing LLIF were retrospectively reviewed. All the following criteria must be fulfilled: (1) dynamic clinical symptoms (pain relief in supine position), (2) presence of reducible disc height (recovered disc height in supine position), (3) no profound weakness, and (4) no static stenosis. The success rate of indirect decompression with LLIF and results after at least 1 year of follow-up were collected. Preoperative, procedure-related, and postoperative factors were assessed for their relationship with failure.
Results Of 191 patients,13 patients (6.8%) required additional direct decompression due to persistent pain, giving a criteria success rate of 93.2%. Factors associated with indirect decompression failure included low bone mineral density (T-score < 2.1), low reducible disc height (<13%), low postoperative disc height (< 10 mm), high-grade cage subsidence, and use of plate fixation.
Conclusion We proposed patient selection criteria for indirect decompression with LLIF which had a satisfactory success rate and identified factors associated with the need for additional direct decompression. Our proposed criteria may assist selection of patients likely to achieve good results following indirect decompression with LLIF, and optimize selection based on risk factors of failure.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Is Congenital Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis a Contraindication for Indirect Decompression by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Thada Nashinoros, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Vit Kotheeranurak, Worawat Limthongkul Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(5): 2117. CrossRef
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Xuefeng Li, Cheng Lin, Tangyiheng Chen, Renjie Li, Dapeng Li, Sheng Song, Huilin Yang, Genlei Chu, Weimin Jiang, Yijie Liu Neurosurgery.2026; 99(4): 841. CrossRef
Lumbar Foraminal Morphology Can Affect Outcomes of Indirect Decompression: A Systematic Review and Novel Classification Rakan Bokhari, Mohamad Bakhaidar, Abdulrahman Alnaseem, Khalid Bajunaid, Omar Aljohani, Mohamed Alwadai, Saman Shabani, Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez, Christoph P. Hofstetter, Muhammad Abd-El-Barr Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(6): 2783. CrossRef
Global research landscape and citation dynamics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential articles Badr Hafiz, Thamer Alsharif, Faisal Sukkar, Moaath Alghamdi, Ali Zaki Alhabib, Shuruq Obaid Alshammari, Saleh Baeesa Brain and Spine.2026; 6: 106043. CrossRef
The iLLIF score: a predictive success scoring system for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Narat Virojanawat, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Worawat Limthongkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Weerasak Singhatanadgige European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Volume-Based Stratification of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: A Single-Center Cohort Integrating MRI/CT Morphometrics with Stepwise Interventional, Minimally Invasive and Decompression–Stabilization Surgery Renat Madekhatovich Nurmukhametov, Medetbek Dzhumabekovich Abakirov, Stepan Anatolyevich Kudryakov, Alberto Luis Martinez Mateo, Jonathan Lara Taveras, Ismael Peralta Baez, Medet Kaskirbayevich Dosanov, Nicola Montemurro Clinical and Translational Neuroscience.2026; 10(3): 20. CrossRef
Contralateral Nerve Root Injuries After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Causes, Treatment, and Prevention Jun Seok Lee, Su Hun Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Chi Hyung Lee, Chang Hyeun Kim, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee World Neurosurgery.2026; 215: 125326. CrossRef
Static Versus Expandable Cages in Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Ryan S. Beyer, Tara Shooshani, Bianca Batista, Genevieve M. Fraipont, Omead Pooladzandi, Nolan J. Brown, Zach Pennington, Martin H. Pham Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(7): 326. CrossRef
Factors affecting outcomes of indirect decompression after oblique and lateral lumbar interbody fusions Kyle M M Behrens, Hossein Elgafy World Journal of Orthopedics.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Patient selection and workup David Strong, Joel Steiner, Robert Lee Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; 37(1): 101158. CrossRef
Ligamentotaxis Effect of Lateral Lumber Interbody Fusion and Cage Subsidence Ryosuke Tomio Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(13): 4554. CrossRef
Pearls and Pitfalls of Revision Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Technical Note Jiawen Fong, Zi Xian Justin Chou, Walter-Soon-Yaw Wong, Yilun Huang Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of microscope-assisted modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion and impact on lumbar lordosis and intervertebral height Weijian Wang, Jilong An, Jiaqi Li, Han Wu, Haoyu Wu, Yapeng Sun, Wei Zhang BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Three Cases of Indirect Decompression Failure Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Requiring Early Direct Posterior Decompression: Analysis of Etiologies and Literature Review Satoshi Hattori, Satoru Matsutani Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of midterm outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral vertebral body screw fixation for single level spondylolisthesis Fu-Cheng Kao, Shih-Feng Hung, Yu-Pao Hsu, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Hung-Kang Wu, Ming-Te Cheng, Kuang-Kai Hsueh, Po-Yuan Lin, Ching-Hsiao Yu BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Prediction of Angle Loss after L4/5 Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion : Development of a Risk Stratification Model Se-Woon Kim, Su-Hun Lee, Jun-Seok Lee, Chi-Hyung Lee, Chang-Hyun Kim, Soon-Ki Sung, Dong-Wuk Son, Sang-Weon Lee Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2025; 68(6): 724. CrossRef
Efficacy observation of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) in treating severe spinal stenosis Yiliya Yilihamu, Jun Mo, Zhanjun Ma, Jianjiang Li, Yifei Huang BMC Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients Worawat Limthongkul, Chayapong Thanapura, Khanathip Jitpakdee, Pakawas Praisarnti, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Weerasak Singhatanadgige Neurospine.2024; 21(1): 342. CrossRef
Impact of Osteoporosis on Short-Term Surgical Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients Undergoing Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis Akihiko Hiyama, Daisuke Sakai, Hiroyuki Katoh, Masato Sato, Masahiko Watanabe World Neurosurgery.2024; 188: e424. CrossRef
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Internal Fixation: Does Variability in Cage Position Influence Clinical Outcomes? Xingda Chen, Liekun Chen, Jingjing Tang, Wanyan Chen, Zefeng Song, Zelin Zhou, Hang Zhuo, Riwei Tan, Rueishiuan Jiang, Wenhua Zhao, De Liang, Hui Ren, Gengyang Shen, Xiaobing Jiang World Neurosurgery.2024; 189: e904. CrossRef
A Comprehensive Analysis of Potential Complications after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Review of Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Scans in Over 400 Cases Kang-Hoon Lee, Su-Hun Lee, Jun-Seok Lee, Young-Ha Kim, Soon-Ki Sung, Dong-Wuk Son, Sang-Weon Lee, Geun-Sung Song Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2024; 67(5): 550. CrossRef
Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Outcomes Requiring Additional Intervention Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Worawat Limthongkul, Bandid Chaiwongwattana, Stephen J. Kerr, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige Neurospine.2024; 21(3): 845. CrossRef
Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery combined with mini-incision OLIF and anterolateral screws rod fixation vs. MIS-TLIF for surgical treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis Tianyao Zhou, Wenshuai Fan, Yutong Gu, Wu Che, Liang Zhang, Yichao Wang Frontiers in Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Hybrid surgery of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) combined with OLIF and anterolateral screws rod fixation for treatment of multi-level lumbar degenerative diseases with intervertebral instability Tianyao Zhou, Yutong Gu Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparing Efficacy of Lumbar Disc Space Preparation via an Anterior-to-Psoas Approach Between Intraoperative Conventional Fluoroscopy and Computed Tomographic-Based Navigation System: A Cadaveric Study Worawat Limthongkul, Waranyoo Wathanavasin, Vit Kotheeranurak, Thanadol Tangdamrongtham, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige World Neurosurgery.2023; 176: e226. CrossRef
Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion Su Hun Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Sung Hyun Bae, Jun Seok Lee, Young Ha Kim, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee, Geun Sung Song Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 553. CrossRef
Effective Modulation of Inflammation and Oxidative Stress for Enhanced Regeneration of Intervertebral Discs Using 3D Porous Hybrid Protein Nanoscaffold Letao Yang, Basanta Bhujel, Yannan Hou, Jeffrey Luo, Seong Bae An, Inbo Han, Ki‐Bum Lee Advanced Materials.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Letter to the Editor : Classifying the Anatomical Location of the Ureter after Retroperitoneal Dissection Su-Hun Lee, Dong-Wuk Son, Jun-Seok Lee, Geun-Sung Song Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2023; 66(5): 605. CrossRef
Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis Hui Lv, Yu Sheng Yang, Jian Hong Zhou, Yuan Guo, Hui Chen, Fei Luo, Jian Zhong Xu, Zhong Rong Zhang, Ze Hua Zhang Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 824. CrossRef
Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screw fixation: Comparison between conventional double position versus navigation-assisted single lateral position Junghoon Han, Chang-Min Ha, Woon Tak Yuh, Young San Ko, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Shin Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sungjoon Lee, Sun-Ho Lee, Asfandyar Khan, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim, Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291114. CrossRef
Enhanced Intervertebral Disc Repair via Genetically Engineered Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Tetracycline Regulatory System Yeji Kim, Seong Bae An, Sang-Hyuk Lee, Jong Joo Lee, Sung Bum Kim, Jae-Cheul Ahn, Dong-Youn Hwang, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(22): 16024. CrossRef
Safety and Feasibility of Intradiscal Administration of Matrilin-3-Primed Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Spheroids for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain: Phase 1 Clinical Trial Dong Hyun Lee, Kwang-Sook Park, Hae Eun Shin, Sung Bum Kim, Hyejeong Choi, Seong Bae An, Hyemin Choi, Joo Pyung Kim, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(23): 16827. CrossRef
An Expanded Surgical Corridor of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4–5: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study Worawat Limthongkul, Pakawas Praisarnti, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Natavut Prasertkul, Vit Kotheeranurak, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1450. CrossRef
First
Prev
