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
Objective Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a mainstay technique for interbody fusion, allowing for large contact area between implant and endplate, and providing increased stability and greater area for fusion. The development of 3-dimensional (3D)-expandable implants that provide multidimensional (3D) expansion has shown to provide better height restoration and clinical outcomes when compared to static implants. Comparison of the endplate coverage between 3D-expandable and static TLIF implants has yet to be studied. This study compares endplate coverage achieved with static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) implants.
Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing interbody fusion with either static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, or ALIF between the years 2014 and 2022 was conducted. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to measure endplate and implant dimensions. 3D-expandable TLIF interbody device areas were calculated using diameter measurements on postoperative CT. The coverage ratio was defined as the ratio of twice the area of the implant and the sum of the superior and inferior endplate areas at the operative level.
Results A total of 53 patients per cohort were included. The average endplate coverage ratios for static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and ALIF implants were 0.19±0.04, 0.35±0.06, and 0.46±0.13, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed comparable coverage of 3D-expandable TLIF to ALIF implants at L3–4 and L4–5, while ALIF remained superior at L5–S1.
Conclusion 3D-expandable TLIF interbody devices provide greater endplate coverage when compared to static TLIF devices and approach comparable coverage to ALIF implants.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A Commentary on “Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants” Kun Wang, Xiaofeng Lian Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 902. CrossRef
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the December 2025 Issue Inbo Han Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 877. CrossRef
Tomoyuki Asada, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Adrian Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Olivia C. Tuma, Kasra Araghi, Todd J. Albert, James Farmer, Russel C. Huang, Harvinder Sandhu, Han Jo Kim, Francis C. Lovecchio, James E. Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2025;22(1):3-13. Published online March 31, 2025
Objective While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
Methods This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
Results Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee European Spine Journal.2026; 35(7): 3994. CrossRef
Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion Cong Zhang, Chengming Li, Xiaotao Wu, Xiaozhi Sun Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1. CrossRef
Biomaterials and Noncoding RNA: The “Repair‐Alliance” Perspective in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Chen Liu, Zhengguang Li, Yongbo Zhang, Tianyi Ji, Hua Sun, Gen Wei, Liang Zhang, Juqun Xi Advanced Healthcare Materials.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Modified Integrated Health State Suggests Lower Cumulative Neck Pain–Related Disability After Cervical Disk Replacement Compared With Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Tomoyuki Asada, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Eric R. Zhao, Adrian T. H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Austin C. Kaidi, Kasra Araghi, Vishaal Nayagam, Roger Freeman, Olivia C. Tuma, Tarek Harhash, Harvinder S. Sandhu, Todd J. Albert, Han Jo Kim, James C. Farmer, Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Purpose Postoperative ileus (POI) typically occurs after abdominal surgery but can also affect patients undergoing spinal surgery via the lateral retroperitoneal approach, such as oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors associated with POI in OLIF.
Methods This retrospective study examined a cohort of 465 patients who underwent OLIF from 2015 to 2023. Patient demographics, comorbidities, pre- and postoperative laboratory test results, and perioperative status were assessed. General condition of patients was assessed using the modified frailty index-11 (mFI-11), prognostic nutrition index, and geriatric nutrition risk index. In OLIF, the size and location of the psoas muscle involved in retraction and its relationship with the vertebral body were also investigated.
Results POI occurred in 19 patients (4%). Lower mFI-11 was linked to a higher risk of POI. While psoas muscle size had no significant effect on the risk of POI, the anterior location of the psoas muscle relative to the vertebral body was associated with a higher occurrence of POI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of POI identified mFI-11 as the most significant risk factor (p = 0.003).
Conclusion This study demonstrated that frailty and nutritional status can influence the occurrence of POI after OLIF. Additionally, bowel manipulation associated with the location of psoas muscle and vertebral body was identified as a risk factor. Proper assessment and improvement in patient frailty and nutritional status before surgery can help predict and prevent the occurrence of postoperative POI.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Development and comparison of machine learning models for predicting postoperative ileus after posterior thoracolumbar fracture surgery Yantong Zhang, Renji Zheng, Huiqing Gao, Yingfeng Zhou, Jun Li, Liqiong Chen European Spine Journal.2026; 35(3): 1401. CrossRef
Risk factors for prolonged postoperative ileus in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer Huan Liu, Yang Chen, Shi-Gang Guo, Zhu Liu, Yong-Shuai Huang, Zhen-Dong Zhu, Yu-Jie Feng, Qing Yang, Ya-Lei Liu World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective There is increased use of 3-dimensional (3D)-printing for manufacturing of interbody cages to create microscale surface features that promote bone formation. Those features may be vulnerable to abrasion and/or delamination during cage impaction. Our objective was to quantify loss of mass and changes in surface topography of 3D-printed titanium interbody cages due to surgical impaction.
Methods Eight surfaces of four 3D-printed titanium modular interbody fusion cages were tested. The cages were impacted into the Sawbones model with compression preload of either 200N or 400N using a guided 1-lb (0.45 kg) drop weight. Mass and surface roughness parameters of each endplate were recorded and compared for differences.
Results Significant weight loss was observed for the superior endplate group and for both 200N and 400N preloads. For pooled data comparison, significant postimpaction decreases were observed for mean roughness, root-mean-squared roughness, mean roughness depth, and total height of roughness profile. No significant differences were observed for profile skewness and kurtosis. There were significant changes in almost all roughness parameters in the anterior region of the cage postimpaction with significant changes in 2 out of 6 parameters in the middle, posterior, and central regions postimpaction.
Conclusion Three-dimensional-printed titanium interbody fusion cages underwent loss of mass and alteration in surface topography during benchtop testing replicating physiologic conditions. There was an endplate- and region-specific postimpaction change in roughness parameters. The anterior surface experienced the largest change in surface parameters postimpaction. Our results have implications for future cage design and pre-approval testing of 3D-printed implants.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Radiographic Evaluation of a Modular Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) Cage: Subsidence and Segmental Lordosis Harvinder Bhatti, Nathan R Wanderman, Jessica L Shellock, Richard D Guyer, Donna D Ohnmeiss, Kelly Van Schouwen, Nicholas Spina Cureus.2026;[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 This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.
Methods A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.
Results The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.
Conclusion Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Cage design-centric glider approach to full-endoscopic lumbar fusion: optimizing nerve root protection in facet-sparing and facet-resecting techniques Yu-Chia Hsu, Hao-Chun Chuang, Yuan-Fu Liu, Chao-Jui Chang, Yu-Meng Hsiao, Yi-Hung Huang, Keng-Chang Liu, Chien-Min Chen, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Cheng-Li Lin Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(2): 343. CrossRef
Recovery outcomes for military personnel undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis induced by physical overload: a retrospective study Vasyl Melenko, Lyudmila Kravchuk, Dmytro Nozdrenko, Andriy Maznychenko, Tetiana Abramovych, Inna Sokolowska, Iakіv Fishchenko BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Jaden Wise, Isabella Merem, Dahlia Wrubluski, Xuanzong Zhang, Ridge Weston, Min Shi, Maohua Lin, Frank D. Vrionis Bioengineering.2026; 13(3): 262. CrossRef
IMPACT OF INTERBODY CAGE GEOMETRY ON OUTCOMES OF MICRODISCECTOMY WITH INTERBODY FUSION Yevgenii Slynko, Roman Chamata, Olexander Potapov Eastern Ukrainian Medical Journal.2026; 14(1): 268. CrossRef
3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF Connor C. Jacob, Ryan Eaton, Jacob Ward, Katelyn Sette, Seth Wilson, Matthieu D. Weber, Olivia Duru, Alexander Keister, Markus E. Harrigan, Andrew J. Grossbach, Stephanus Viljoen Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 249: 108731. CrossRef
Comparison of Sagittal Plane Correction With “Bullet” Versus “Banana” Type Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices Zach Pennington, Abdelrahman Hamouda, Michael Martini, Rahul Kumar, Anthony L. Mikula, Maria Astudillo Potes, Mohamad Bydon, Michelle J. Clarke, William E. Krauss, Ahmad N. Nassr, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, Jeremy L. Fogelson, Benjamin D. Elde Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(5): 624. CrossRef
Expandable cage technology in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: where are we and what does the future hold? Chibuikem A. Ikwuegbuenyi, Noah Willett, Evan Wang, Sean Inzerillo, Ibrahim Hussain Expert Review of Medical Devices.2025; 22(4): 349. CrossRef
‘Rebound Phenomenon’ – a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients Jvahar Jill, Sathish Muthu, Guna Pratheep Kalanchiam, Nalli Ramanathan Uvaraj Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59(12): 2126. CrossRef
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) with Expandable Banana-Shaped Interbody Spacers—Institutional 5-Year Experience Martin N. Stienen, Lorenzo Bertulli, Gregor Fischer, Linda Bättig, Yesim Yildiz, Laurin Feuerstein, Francis Kissling, Thomas Schöfl, Felix C. Stengel, Daniele Gianoli, Stefan Motov, Ethan Schonfeld, Anand Veeravagu, Benjamin Martens, Nader Hejrati Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(15): 5402. CrossRef
Segmental lordosis in lumbar stabilization in patients with degenerative pathology: a non-systematic literature review O. N. Leonova, N. S. Kuzmin, E. S. Baykov, A. V. Krutko Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika).2025; 22(3): 67. CrossRef
Comparison of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with and without platelet-rich plasma injections for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis Liangjie Lu, Keyi Xiao, Li-Ru He, Rui-Song Chen, Teng-Hui Zeng, Guang-Xun Lin Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(5): 728. CrossRef
Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants Jacob Mazza, Manhal Siddiqi, John Paul G. Kolcun, Dominick Richards, Richard G. Fessler Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 891. CrossRef
Ishan Khosla, Fatima N. Anwar, Andrea M. Roca, Srinath S. Medakkar, Alexandra C. Loya, Keith R. MacGregor, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Eileen Zheng, Aayush Kaul, Jacob C. Wolf, Vincent P. Federico, Gregory D. Lopez, Arash J. Sayari, Kern Singh
Neurospine 2024;21(1):361-371. Published online January 29, 2024
Objective To evaluate the effect of Veterans RAND 12-item health survey mental composite score (VR-12 MCS) on postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion.
Methods Retrospective data from a single-surgeon database created 2 cohorts: patients with VR-12 MCS ≥ 50 or VR-12 MCS < 50. Preoperative, 6-week, and final follow-up (FF)- PROMs including VR-12 MCS/physical composite score (PCS), 12-item Short Form health survey (SF-12) MCS/PCS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), visual analogue scale (VAS)-back/leg pain (VAS-BP/LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected. ∆6-week and ∆FF-PROMs were calculated. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were determined from established cutoffs from the literature. For intercohort comparison, chi-square analysis was used for categorical variables, and Student t-test for continuous variables.
Results Seventy-nine patients were included; 25 were in VR-12 MCS < 50. Mean postoperative follow-up time was 17.12 ± 8.43 months. The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort had worse VR-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, VAS-BP, and ODI scores preoperatively (p ≤ 0.014, all), worse VR-12 MCS/PCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, and ODI scores at 6-week postoperatively (p ≤ 0.039, all), and worse VR-12 MCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI scores at FF (p ≤ 0.046, all). The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort showed greater improvement in VR-12 MCS and SF-12 MCS scores at 6 weeks and FF (p ≤ 0.005, all). The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort experienced greater MCID achievement for VR-12 MCS, SF-12 MCS, and PHQ-9 (p ≤ 0.006, all).
Conclusion VR-12 MCS < 50 yielded worse mental health, physical function, pain and disability postoperatively, yet reported greater improvements in magnitude and MCID achievement for mental health.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Preoperative mental health status measured by the SF12 questionnaire correlates with patient reported outcomes one year after total knee arthroplasty Jordi Faig-Martí, Robert Ferrer-Rivero, Adriana Martínez-Catasús Journal of Orthopaedic Reports.2025; : 100852. CrossRef
Objective Although several studies have reported successful fusion rates after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using allografts or dimerized bone matrix (DBM) instead of autografts, whether OLIF can achieve satisfactory solid fusion without the use of autografts remains unclear. This study investigated the real fusion rates after OLIF using allografts and DBM, which were evaluated using both dynamic radiographs and computed tomography scans.
Methods We enrolled 79 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive OLIF followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. All patients were treated with OLIF between L2 and L5 and underwent radiographic and clinical follow-ups at 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. Radiographic assessment of fusion was performed using the modified BrantigaSteffee-Fraser (mBSF) scale, which was categorized as follows: grades I (radiographic pseudoarthrosis), II (indeterminate fusion), and III (solid radiographic fusion). Other radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated using the following parameters: vertebral slippage distance, disc height, subsidence, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS).
Results Clinical outcomes demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS scores for back pain, leg pain, and ODI after surgery. Subsidence was present in 34 cases (35.4%) at 12 months postoperatively, which increased to 47.9% and reached 50.0% at 1.5 years and 2 years after surgery, respectively. The solid fusion rate after OLIF was 32.3% at 1 year, increased to 58.3% at 1.5 years, and reached 72.9% at 2 years. Radiographic pseudoarthrosis was 24.0% at 1 year, which decreased to 6.3% at 1.5 years and 3.1% at 2 years.
Conclusion OLIF is a safe and effective surgical procedure for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. The mBSF scale, which simultaneously evaluates both dynamic angles and bone bridge formation, offers great reliability for the radiological assessment of fusion. Moreover, OLIF using allografts and DBM, which is performed on one or 2 levels at L2–5, can achieve satisfactory fusion rates within 2 years after surgery.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Oblique lateral interbody fusion: role of the elastic modulus of the cage material in mechanically induced osteogenesis Teng Lu, Zhongwei Sun, Xijing He Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.2026; 276: 109242. CrossRef
CT Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Review with an Integrated Framework for Principle-Based Interpretation Szu-Hsiang Peng, Jwo-Luen Pao Diagnostics.2026; 16(1): 140. CrossRef
Understanding Spine Biologics: A Systematic Review of Demineralized Bone Matrix in Spinal Fusion From 2014-2024 Molly Butler, Blake Martin, Christopher Carr, Muhsin Quraishi, Alexander F. Post, Fernando L. Vale Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Is extension of multi-level lumbar fusion to S1 necessary in the absence of L5–S1 instability? A comparative study of selective decompression versus TLIF with S1 pedicle screw fixation Ahmet Kürşat Kara, Zahir Kızılay Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] 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
Reduction-First Technique of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis JinWoo Jung, Man-Kyu Park, Yong Jin Park, Dae-Chul Cho, Young San Ko World Neurosurgery.2025; 198: 124005. CrossRef
Comparative efficacy of autologous iliac bone versus allogeneic demineralized bone matrix in lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a novel minimally invasive iliac bone retrieval tool: a self-controlled study Jiaqi Li, Shaorong Li, Shuowen Zhang, Lin Liu, Weijian Wang, Han Wu, Qiang Yang, Wei Zhang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective The risks of nonunion and subsidence are high in patients with bone density loss undergoing spinal fusion surgery. The internal application of recombinant human bone morphogenic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in an interbody cage improves spinal fusion; however, related complications have been reported. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), hinders osteoblast differentiation and function. Therefore, this study aimed to observe the combined effect of the local application of rhBMP-2 in a lumbar cage and systemic RANKL inhibition on postoperative spinal fusion in patients with bone density loss undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).
Methods This retrospective observational study included 251 consecutive patients with spinal stenosis who underwent PLIF at a single center between 2017 and 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed, and radiographic evaluations included lumbar flexion, extension, range of motion, and subsidence. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify the combined effect of the treatment and the subsidence and spinal fusion status.
Results One hundred patients were included in the final analysis. Denosumab treatment significantly reduced the rate of osteolysis (p = 0.013). When denosumab was administered in combination with rhBMP-2, the fusion status remained similar; however, the incidences of postoperative osteolysis and postoperative oozing day decreased.
Conclusion The combined use of rhBMP-2 and RANKL inhibition in patients with bone density loss can enhance bone formation after PLIF with fewer complications than rhBMP-2 alone.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Postoperative bone loss after posterior lumbar interbody fusion is a risk factor of cage subsidence independently of preoperative CT-derived attenuation: a retrospective study based on hounsfield unit Yunsheng Wang, Ruiling Wang, Tong Tong, Dechao Miao, Feng Wang, Linfeng Wang BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Histomorphologic Assessment of Osteoregeneration in a Rabbit Femur Model With Xenograft, Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2, Platelet-Rich Plasma, and Denosumab Berik Tuleubayev, Yevgeniy Kamyshanskiy, Yerkin-Dauir Kurmangaliyev, Amina Koshanova, Ivan Avromidi, Yekaterina Kossilova, Daryn Darybayev Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open.2026; 14(4): e7593. CrossRef
Comparable Fusion Response, but Increased Inflammatory Response, with Escherichia coli-Derived Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Mu Ha Lee, Hyun Jun Jang, Kyung Hyun Kim, Jeong-Yoon Park, Sung Uk Kuh, Dong Kyu Chin, Keun Su Kim, Jae Keun Oh, Bong Ju Moon Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(11): 4026. CrossRef
Comparison of Hounsfield Unit, Vertebral Bone Quality, and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry T-Score for Predicting Cage Subsidence After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Yunsheng Wang, Jiali Zhang, Tong Tong, Dechao Miao, Feng Wang, Linfeng Wang Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(4): 2226. CrossRef
Antiosteoporosis medication in patients with posterior spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis HyungSub Jin, HyungJu Jin, Kyung-Soo Suk, Byung Ho Lee, Si Young Park, Hak-Sun Kim, Seong-Hwan Moon, Sub-Ri Park, Namhoo Kim, Jae Won Shin, Ji-Won Kwon The Spine Journal.2025; 25(9): 1877. CrossRef
Impact of Frailty and Other Factors as Estimated by HU to Predict Response to Anabolic Bone Medications Abdelrahman M. Hamouda, Zach Pennington, Rahul Kumar, Michael L. Martini, Derrick Obiri-Yeboah, Maria Astudillo Potes, Nicholas Kendall, Anthony L. Mikula, Michelle J. Clarke, William E. Krauss, Ahmad N. Nassr, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, Melvi Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(9): 3247. CrossRef
Application of BMP-2 for bone regeneration in osteoporosis V.S. Kuznetsova, V.A. Sinelnikova, A.V. Vasilyev Stomatology.2025; 104(3): 101. CrossRef
Low-Dose Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use in Spinal Fusion : Rethinking Clinical Efficacy Jun Ho Lee, Ji Hyun Youn, Hyun Jung Park, Seung-Jae Hyun Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2025; 68(6): 632. CrossRef
Promotion of Bone Formation in a Rat Osteoporotic Vertebral Body Defect Model via Suppression of Osteoclastogenesis by Ectopic Embryonic Calvaria Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Yerin Yu, Somin Lee, Minsung Bock, Seong Bae An, Hae Eun Shin, Jong Seop Rim, Jun-oh Kwon, Kwang-Sook Park, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2024; 25(15): 8174. CrossRef
The Canal Bone Ratio Yunsheng Wang, Tong Tong, Jiali Zhang, Dechao Miao, Feng Wang, Linfeng Wang Spine.2024; 49(22): 1570. 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 This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery.
Methods We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS).
Results Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia.
Conclusion Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
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
Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent spinal stenosis after posterior lumbar fusion Feifei Chen, Xin Nie, Yanjun Ren, Yubin Qi Asian Journal of Surgery.2025; 48(6): 4008. CrossRef
Anterior to psoas fusion: Radiological parameters and associated clinical outcomes Andrew James Berg, Joseph Maalouly, Liam D. Rose, Prashanth J. Rao, Shay Menachem Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; 37(1): 101167. 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
Oral Eupolyphaga sinensis extract promotes lumbar interbody fusion by enhancing vascularization of cartilage endplate Ruixin Zhen, Jiaqi Li, Shaorong Li, Han Wu, Wei Zhang Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Can Wallis topping-off surgery reduce radiographic adjacent segment degeneration? a single-center study with at least 8 years of long-term follow-up Sixue Chen, Yang Xiong, Ziye Qiu, Ningning Feng, Guozheng Jiang, Junji Yang, Xing Yu BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Research trends and clustering analysis of postoperative infections following lumbar interbody fusion: a bibliometric study Yanxiao Liu, Hua Wang, Lei Li Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Revision Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Following Previous Central Decompression: A Case Series Seung-Yeon Jeong, Hyun-Jin Park, Jin-Ho Park, Gab-Lae Kim Journal of Advanced Spine Surgery.2025; 15(2): 84. CrossRef
Improved intervertebral fusion in LLIF rabbit model with a novel titanium cage Jiaqi Li, Bingyi Zhao, Weijian Wang, Yafei Xu, Haoyu Wu, Wei Zhang The Spine Journal.2024; 24(6): 1109. CrossRef
Screening patients requiring secondary lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases: a nationwide sample cohort study Hangeul Park, Juhee Lee, Yunhee Choi, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sum Kim, Young-Rak Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Kyoung-Tae Kim, John M. Rhee, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2024;[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
Trends in degenerative lumbar spinal surgery during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Republic of Korea: A national study utilizing the national health insurance database Woon Tak Yuh, Jinhee Kim, Mi-Sook Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Young Rak Kim, Sum Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sung Bae Park, Kyoung-Tae Kim, John M. Rhee, Young San Ko, Chi Heon Kim, Kentaro Yamada PLOS ONE.2024; 19(6): e0305128. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of navigation robot-assisted versus conventional oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion with internal fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A retrospective study Min Tong, Siping Zhang, Wenhao Zhang, Limin Mou, Zhenyu Dong, Rong Wang, Shida Li, Yifei Huang Medicine.2024; 103(32): e39261. 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
Commentary on “Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion” Alexander E. Ropper Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 564. 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
Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Diseases after Primary Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis Wencan Ke, Teng Zhang, Bingjin Wang, Wenbin Hua, Kun Wang, Jason Pui Yin Cheung, Cao Yang Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(10): 2701. 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
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
The Influence of Spondylolisthesis Reduction on the Adjacent Lumbar Segment Tae-Hwan Park, Yunhee Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sum Kim, Young Rak Kim, Yong San Ko, Woon Tak Yuh, John M. Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim The Nerve.2023; 9(2): 91. 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
Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205. CrossRef
Objective Three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium implants have been developed recently, but the utility is not yet proven. The aim of this study was to compare 3D-printed titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
Methods Between October 2018 and September 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 83 patients who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF (3D-printed titanium, 40; PEEK, 43). Radiologic parameters were assessed with x-ray and computed tomography (CT) at postoperative 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year. Clinical status was evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale score, and Bridwell fusion grading was assessed on 6-month and 1-year postoperative CT.
Results There were no differences between the 2 groups in demographics and clinical outcomes. At 1-year of follow-up, the reported 3D-printed titanium fusion grades were grade I: 77.5% (31 patients), grade II: 17.5% (7 patients), and grade III: 5% (2 patients). The PEEK fusion grades were grade I: 51.2% (22 patients), grade II: 41.9% (18 patients), and grade III: 7.0% (3 patients). For overall fusion rate (grade I + II), there was no difference between the 2 cages (95.0% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.705), but grade I was reported at a higher incidence in 3D-printed titanium than PEEK (77.5% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.013). There was no difference between cages based on subsidence and complications.
Conclusion There were no significant differences in the overall fusion rate for MIS-TLIF surgery between 3D-printed titanium and PEEK, but the fusion grade was better in 3D-printed titanium than in PEEK. Long-term follow-up is required to verify the effectiveness.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Do Three-Dimensional Printed Porous Titanium Relative to Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages Reduce Complications and Revisions after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? Hannah A. Levy, Abdelrahman M. Hamouda, Christopher A. Magera, Jayanth Kumar, Cassandra Willson, Brian C. Goh, James T. Bernatz, Benjamin D. Elder, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 185. CrossRef
Lumbar Fusion With Micro- & Nano-Textured, 3D Printed Porous Titanium Versus PEEK Interbody Cages in TLIF: A Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial Joshua H. Weinberg, Nathan Ritchey, Witty Kwok, Shravani Khisti, Bryan Ladd, Stephanus Viljoen, Siri S. Khalsa, David S. Xu, Andrew J. Grossbach Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 434. CrossRef
Evaluation of the porosity and structural stability of 3D-printed porous titanium pedicle screws using finite element analysis Kwang Hyeon Kim, Junsu Bae, Kyeong-Joo Yoo, Seonghoon Jeong, Byung-Jou Lee Biomedical Engineering Letters.2026; 16(1): 55. CrossRef
Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations Sahil Garg, Patrick Young, Christopher Franquemont, Rachel Conley, Sanjitpal Gill Journal of Functional Biomaterials.2026; 17(3): 143. CrossRef
Optimal cage biomaterials for fusion and subsidence outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: a network meta-analysis of 4881 patients Gilberto Perez Rodriguez Garcia, James Kelbert, Dana Saleh, Annemarie Pico, Nikhil Dholaria, Giovanni Barbagli, Zachary Wetsel, Salma Bakr, Tyler Krall, Vick Sahni, Amna Hussein, Joseph Georges, Sananthan Sivakanthan, Michael Prim, Ali A. Baaj European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Titanium-coated PEEK versus 3D-printed porous titanium cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis Youngmin Yu, Thomas Cho, Jiayong Liu Journal of Orthopaedics.2026; 77: 124. CrossRef
Mechanical optimization of 3D-printed PEEK spinal fusion cages: An integrated experimental–computational framework Gabriela Talpeanu, David Putzer, Ran Wang, Fatemeh Shahriyari, Michael Nogler, Timothy O.’Brian, Firas Awaja Materials Today Communications.2026; 54: 115512. CrossRef
3D-printed porous titanium vs polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with bone mineral density stratification Jae-Won Shin, Mun-Su Park, Ji-Won Kwon, Sang-Ho Kim, Joonoh Seo, Hak-Sun Kim, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Byung Ho Lee The Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Trabecular Bone Remodeling after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of the Osseointegration in Three-Dimensional Porous Titanium Cages and Polyether-Ether-Ketone Cages Naoki Segi, Hiroaki Nakashima, Sadayuki Ito, Jun Ouchida, Ryotaro Oishi, Ippei Yamauchi, Yuichi Miyairi, Yoshinori Morita, Tomohiro Matsumoto, Shunsuke Kanbara, Keigo Ito, Shiro Imagama Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(1): 66. CrossRef
A comprehensive review on the State of the Art in the research and development of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) biomaterial-based implants Prabaha Sikder Acta Biomaterialia.2025; 191: 29. CrossRef
Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine Katherine Corso, Andreas Teferra, Annalisa Michielli, Kristin Corrado, Amy Marcini, Mark Lotito, Caroline Smith, Michelle Costa, Jill Ruppenkamp, Anna Wallace Medical Devices: Evidence and Research.2025; Volume 18: 37. CrossRef
3D Printed Titanium Scaffolds with Bi‐Directional Gradient QK‐Functionalized Surface Xiaoyun Sun, Ru Zhong, Congcong Wu, Silin Ye, Haipeng Yuan, Zhou Fang, Junjian Chen, Delin Cheng, Lijing Hao, Lei Chu, Lin Wang Advanced Materials.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis Haozhong Wang, Hao Zhang, Changming Xiao, Kaiquan Zhang, Lisheng Qi Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with titanium cage Ehab A.E. Elshal, Amer A. Mostafa, Mohammed A.E.B.A. Elfattah Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal.2025; 23(1): 1. CrossRef
Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives Iulian Antoniac, Veronica Manescu (Paltanea), Gheorghe Paltanea, Aurora Antoniac, Marco Fosca, Dan Laptoiu, Julietta V. Rau Bioactive Materials.2025; 53: 656. CrossRef
Comparative Analysis Between Single and Double 3-Dimensional Printed Titanium Cages: 1-Year Outcomes After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Ji Yeon Kim, Jin Hong Hyun, Su Yong Choi, Dong Chan Lee, Hyeun Sung Kim, Dong Hwa Heo Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(Suppl 2): S225. CrossRef
Current Applications and Future Directions of Technologies Used in Adult Deformity Surgery for Personalized Alignment: A Narrative Review Janet Hsu, Taikhoom M. Dahodwala, Noel O. Akioyamen, Evan Mostafa, Rami Z. AbuQubo, Xiuyi Alexander Yang, Priya K. Singh, Daniel C. Berman, Rafael De la Garza Ramos, Yaroslav Gelfand, Saikiran G. Murthy, Jonathan D. Krystal, Ananth S. Eleswarapu, Mitchell Journal of Personalized Medicine.2025; 15(10): 480. CrossRef
Expandable Cage in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparative Data with Static Cage from a Single Institution and a Single Surgeon Dongkyu Kim, Hyun Jun Jang, Bong Ju Moon, Kyung Hyun Kim, Sung Uk Kuh, Dong Kyu Chin, Keun Su Kim, Jeong Yoon Park World Neurosurgery.2025; 202: 124428. CrossRef
Comparative Evaluation of PEEK, 3D-Printed Titanium Mesh and Solid Titanium Implants on HU Distortion and Dose Calculation Accuracy in Radiotherapy Sook Yang, Euncheol Choi, Seung Gyu Park, Byungyong Kim, Ye Won Kim, Myeongsoo Kim Applied Sciences.2025; 15(20): 11264. CrossRef
Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Julia Kincaid, Richelle J. Kim, Akash Verma, Ryan W. Turlip, David D. Liu, Daksh Chauhan, Mert Marcel Dagli, Richard J. Chung, Hasan S. Ahmad, Yohannes Ghenbot, Ben Gu, Jang Won Yoon Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(21): 7696. CrossRef
Comparison of Lumbar Interbody Fusion with 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Treating Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Yuchen Duan, Dagang Feng, Tong Li, Yiran Wang, Leiming Jiang, Yong Huang World Neurosurgery.2024; 183: 144. CrossRef
Expandable Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review Soo-Bin Lee, Jonghun Yoon, Sung-Jun Park, Dong-Sik Chae Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(10): 2889. CrossRef
A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis Sutipat Pairojboriboon, Supranee Niruthisard, Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong, Chalinee Monsereenusorn, Siwaporn Poopan, Sheng-Fu Larry Lo World Neurosurgery: X.2024; 23: 100392. CrossRef
Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery Justin J. Lee, Freddy P. Jacome, David M. Hiltzik, Manasa S. Pagadala, Wellington K. Hsu Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.2024; 18(12): 635. CrossRef
Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Ki-Han You, Samuel K. Cho, Jae-Yeun Hwang, Sun-Ho Cha, Min-Seok Kang, Sang-Min Park, Hyun-Jin Park Neurospine.2024; 21(3): 973. 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
Concentration-Dependent Efficacy of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 Using a HA/β-TCP Hydrogel Carrier in a Mini-Pig Vertebral Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Model Hye-Yeong Lee, Ji-In Kang, Hye-Lan Lee, Gwang-Yong Hwang, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(1): 892. CrossRef
Anterior and Posterior Approaches for 4-Level Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Low-Profile Cage Versus Cervical Pedicle Screws Fixation Peng Zou, Rui Zhang, Jun-Song Yang, Er-Liang Li, Qian Zhang, Yuan-Ting Zhao Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(2): 564. CrossRef
Spinal Canal Remodeling and Indirect Decompression of Contralateral Foraminal Stenosis After Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Pang Hung Wu, Eugene Tze-Chun Lau, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Giovanni Grasso, Il-Tae Jang Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 99. CrossRef
Commentary on “Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies” Yanting Liu, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Jin-Sung Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 464. CrossRef
Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Long Polyetheretherketone Cage Cheol Woong Park, A. Muhammed Anzar, Beom Seok Yoo, Jae Eon Yoon, Jae Hyun Kim, Woo Min Park Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(Suppl 1): S62. CrossRef
Comparison between Three‐Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial Zhipeng Deng, Qiang Zou, Lei Wang, Liang Wang, Peng Xiu, Ganjun Feng, Yueming Song, Xi Yang Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(11): 2889. CrossRef
Saving Stabilizing Structure Treatment With Bilateral-Contralateral Decompression for Spinal Stenosis in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Dong Hyun Lee, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Jin Sub Hwang, Jun Yong Kim, Yong-Eun Cho, Sang Won Lee, Dong Chan Lee, Bang Sang Han, Sang Yeop Han Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 931. CrossRef
Comparative Analysis of Radiologic Outcomes Between Polyetheretherketone and Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Tamima Sultana, Mosharraf Hossain, Je Hoon Jeong, Soobin Im World Neurosurgery.2023; 179: e241. CrossRef
The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective Phattareeya Pholprajug, Vit Kotheeranurak, Yanting Liu, Jin-Sung Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1224. CrossRef
Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205. CrossRef
The Combined Effects of RhBMP-2 and Systemic RANKL Inhibitor in Patients With Bone Density Loss Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Analysis With Propensity Score Matching Seungjun Ryu, Seon-Jin Yoon, Chang Kyu Lee, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha, Dong Ah Shin Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1186. CrossRef
The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a popular surgical technique for lumbar arthrodesis, widely considered to hold great efficacy while conferring an impressive safety profile through the minimization of soft tissue damage. This elegant approach to lumbar stabilization is the byproduct of several innovations throughout the past century. In 1934, Mixter and Barr’s paper in the New England Journal of Medicine elucidated the role of disc herniation in spinal instability and radiculopathy, prompting surgeons to explore new approaches and instruments to access the disc space. In 1944, Briggs and Milligan published their novel technique, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), involving continuous removal of vertebral bone chips and replacement of the disc with a round bone peg. The following decades witnessed several PLIF modifications, including the addition of long pedicle screws. In 1982, Harms and Rolinger sought to redefine the posterior corridor by approaching the disc space through the intervertebral foramen, establishing the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In the 1990s, lumbar spine surgery experienced a paradigm shift, with surgeons placing increased emphasis on tissuesparing minimally invasive techniques. Spurred by this revolution, Foley and Lefkowitz published the novel MIS-TLIF technique in 2002. The MIS-TLIF has demonstrated comparable surgical outcomes to the TLIF, with an improved safety profile. Here, we present a view into the history of the posterior-approach treatment of the discogenic radiculopathy, culminating in the MIS-TLIF. Additionally, we evaluate the hallmark characteristics, technical variability, and reported outcomes of the modern MIS-TLIF and take a brief look at technologies that may define the future MIS-TLIF.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with unilateral vs. bilateral pedicle screw fixation in iatrogenic spondylolysis: an in-vitro human cadaveric model Layla Dawit, Jonathan Day, Theodore Joaquin, Daina Brooks, Zan Naseer, Mesfin Lemma, Bryan Cunningham European Spine Journal.2026; 35(6): 3501. CrossRef
Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee European Spine Journal.2026; 35(7): 3994. CrossRef
Comparing the Effect of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia on Postoperative Opioid Use in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Patient Matched Study Harshvardhan G. Iyer, Jesus E. Sanchez-Garavito, Jorge Rios-Zermeno, Andrew P. Roberts, Juan P. Navarro Garcia de Llano, Loizos Michaelides, Jimena Gonzalez-Salido, Benjamin F. Gruenbaum, Elird Bojaxhi, Oluwaseun O. Akinduro, Ian A. Buchanan, Kingsley O. Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(2): 781. CrossRef
Uniportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for elderly patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective comparative study of reduced surgical trauma and accelerated early Juanming Lan, Bin Cao, Yongpeng Lin, Weixiong Hu, Rui Lin, Lulu Li, Bolai Chen Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Minimally invasive spine surgery: current advantages, limitations, and future directions Weonmin Cho, Soo-Bin Lee, Seong Ho Oh, Young-Seo Park, Kyung-Yil Kang Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via bilateral channel for lumbar degenerative disease Ji-hui Zhang, Liang Yu, Jing-fei Xu, Jin-ming Han, Xu-yu Liao, Bo Chai, Liu-jun Zhao Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparing the efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: an umbrella review and meta‑analysis Mohammadreza Bozorgmanesh, Khalil Komlakh, Samaneh Asgari, Mohammad Reza Ramezanpour, Sina Javidmehr Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating lumbar spinal brucellosis Cao Rui, Yin Ming Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Infection Rates Following Trans-Kambin Oblique Lateral-Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Associated Procedures: A Review of 2,069 Cases Hamid Abbasi, Muhammad Sarwar , Abdul Rauf, Dominic Moore Cureus.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Awake Lumbar Fusions: A Comprehensive Review of Modern Techniques and Future Directions Arnav Sharma, Sebastian M. Perez-Espina, Favour C. Ononogbu-Uche, Arianna Brinkley, Liban Mohamed, Rachel D’Cunha, Ernest E. Braxton, Alok Sharan, Kingsley Abode-Iyamah, W. Michael Bullock, Gregory Basil, Theresa Williamson, Muhammad M. Abd-El-Barr Seminars in Spine Surgery.2026; : 101267. CrossRef
Comparing trends and outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures: A retrospective analysis Hania Shahzad, Maximillian Lee, Frank Epitropoulous, Nazihah Bhatti, Varun K. Singh, Venkat Kavuri, Elizabeth Yu Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59: 82. CrossRef
Posterior and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Arpan A. Patel, Shaarada Srivatsa, Mark A. Davison, Michael P. Steinmetz Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2025; 36(1): 11. CrossRef
Synergistic enhancement of spinal fusion in preclinical models using low-dose rhBMP-2 and stromal vascular fraction in an injectable hydrogel composite Hye Yeong Lee, Seong Bae An, Sae Yeon Hwang, Gwang Yong Hwang, Hye-Lan Lee, Hyun Jung Park, Joongkyum Shin, Keung Nyun Kim, Sung Won Wee, Sol Lip Yoon, Yoon Ha Materials Today Bio.2025; 30: 101379. CrossRef
Modified single-incision MIS-TLIF with expandable tubular assistance for degenerative lumbar spine diseases Wenlong Hu, Fei He, Kai Sun, Haiwu Wan, Sijun Ruan, Bo Huang Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Where Are We Now? Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Arati Patel, Praveen V. Mummaneni Neurosurgery.2025; 96(3S): S33. CrossRef
Safety and Utility of Bilateral-contralateral Decompression for Adjacent Segment Stenosis After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Dong Hyun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Dong-Geun Lee Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(10): E488. CrossRef
Long term clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis in a geriatric (>65 years) population: a systematic review and meta-analysis Talgat Kerimbayev, Yerzhan Kuanyshbekov, Serik Akshulakov, Indira Karibayeva Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Outpatient transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion demonstrated favorable safety in comparison to the inpatient setting: analysis of 10,595 NSQIP patients and systematic review Simon G. Ammanuel, Kaissa Sylla, Cuong P. Luu, Momin M. Mohis, Bradley Schmidt World Neurosurgery: X.2025; 27: 100478. CrossRef
Radiation exposure in XLIF surgery utilizing ultra-low radiation imaging with image enhancement software: a randomized controlled trial Benno Bullert, Jula Gierse, Eric Mandelka, Paul A. Gruetzner, Sven Y. Vetter The Spine Journal.2025; 25(12): 2692. CrossRef
Uniportal endoscopic decompression and debridement for infectious diseases of spine with neurological deficits: a retrospective study in China Hui Lv, Jianhong Zhou, Yuan Guo, Sheng Liao, Hui Chen, Fei Luo, Jianzhong Xu, Zhongrong Zhang, Zehua Zhang Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): 205. CrossRef
Novel Design of Expandable Spinal Cage for Efficient Lumbar Spine Fusion Operation Chanwoo Park, Than Trong Khanh Dat, Sung-Jun Park, Dong-Sik Chae, Sung Hoon Choi, Jonghun Yoon Applied Sciences.2025; 15(11): 6323. CrossRef
Optimizing Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note on Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Dual Cage Strategy Atmaranjan Dash, Karansinh Raosaheb Parve Patil, Anurag Reddy Kancharla, Bhushan P. Meshram, Rajesh R. Jamoria, Amaresh Cadapa Prahallad, Mandar P. Patil, Vaibhav S. Dhawali Journal of Spinal Surgery.2025; 12(2): 37. CrossRef
Tubular Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is it the Most Versatile and Effective Technique? – A General Review in Comparison with Endoscopic Interbody Fusion Techniques Umesh Srikantha Journal of Spinal Surgery.2025; 12(2): 30. CrossRef
Clinical Insights on Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implantations Following Spinal Fusion Surgery: Enhancing and Monitoring Bone Health in Patients Francesco Puglia, Marcello Ferraro, Valentina Longhi, Enrico Gallazzi, Giovanni Andrea La Maida Orthopedic Research and Reviews.2025; Volume 17: 281. CrossRef
Comparative Efficacy of Bone Graft Materials in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Sami Al Eissa, Fahad Al Helal, Majed Abaalkhail, Abdullah Al Shehri, Raed Al Mousa, Abdullah Bin Shabib, Hussam Al Angari, Abdulrahman M. AlJahani, Dana W. AlDughiman Journal of Spine Practice.2025; 4(3): 88. CrossRef
Oral Eupolyphaga sinensis extract promotes lumbar interbody fusion by enhancing vascularization of cartilage endplate Ruixin Zhen, Jiaqi Li, Shaorong Li, Han Wu, Wei Zhang Frontiers in Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Improved Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with Double-Cage Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative CT-Based Study Yu-Hao Huang, Jwo-Luen Pao Diagnostics.2025; 15(20): 2652. CrossRef
Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion and modified minimally invasive tubular lumbar fusion for lumbar disc herniation: a two-year retrospective study Jialong Qi, Mingxiang Liu, Tao Shan, Zhou Dong, Guosong Han, Zhihao Ni, Ke Zheng, Li Ma, Zhidong Zhang Frontiers in Neurology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (UBE-TLIF) With Dual-Direction Expandable Cages Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5/S1 Alhareth Maaya, Jin Hwa Eum Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Hybrid cortical bone trajectory and modified cortical bone trajectory techniques in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 segment: A finite element analysis Yixi Wang, Abulikemu Maimaiti, Yang Xiao, Abudusalamu Tuoheti, Rui Zhang, Muzaipaer Maitusong, Qihao Chen, Paerhati Rexiti Heliyon.2024; 10(5): e26294. CrossRef
Pressure Dynamics on Intervertebral Disc Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaver Study Yoshiyama Takaki, Shimei Tanida, Koichi Murata, Takayoshi Shimizu, Shuichi Matsuda, Bungo Otsuki World Neurosurgery.2024; 185: e1321. CrossRef
Risk factors for extended hospital stay following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Fatima N. Anwar, Andrea M. Roca, Srinath S. Medakkar, Alexandra C. Loya, Ishan Khosla, Kern Singh Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 128: 110793. CrossRef
Prognostic value in preoperative Veterans RAND-12 mental Component score on clinical outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Andrea M. Roca, Fatima N. Anwar, James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Srinath S. Medakkar, Alexandra C. Loya, Keith R. MacGregor, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Eileen Zheng, Vincent P. Federico, Gregory D. Lopez, Arash J. Sayari, Kern Singh Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2024; 125: 12. CrossRef
Surgical Strategy for Lumbar Disc Herniation based on the MSU Classification: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5‐year Retrospective Study Hongtao Li, Changming Xiao, Hongyu Pan, Haomiao Yang, Yang Lei, Haozhong Wang, Sen Li Orthopaedic Surgery.2024; 16(8): 1963. CrossRef
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with or without release of the anterior longitudinal ligament: A single-center, retrospective observational cohort study Samantha Högl-Roy, Nader Hejrati, Felix C. Stengel, Stefan Motov, Anand Veeravagu, Benjamin Martens, Martin N. Stienen North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2024; 19: 100533. CrossRef
Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis Elsayed Mohamed Selim Ali, Mohamed Abdeen, Mohammed Khalid Saleh Acta Neurochirurgica.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Successful Arthrodesis Using a Blended Allograft and Autograft Mixture in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Case Series Jay Fiechter, Anthony N Baumann, Micah Smith Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Commentary: Digital Tubular-Based Camera-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Operative Video Ranbir Ahluwalia, Hani Chanbour, Scott L. Zuckerman, Raymond Gardocki Operative Neurosurgery.2024; 27(5): 673. CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Double-Cage Technique Jwo-Luen Pao Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2024; 9(2): 203. 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
Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation Daodong Chen, Tao Liu, Kunyang Du, Zhenjun Zhu Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
An Injectable Engineered Cartilage Gel Improves Intervertebral Disc Repair in a Rat Nucleotomy Model Basanta Bhujel, Soon Shim Yang, Hwal Ran Kim, Sung Bum Kim, Byoung-Hyun Min, Byung Hyune Choi, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(4): 3146. CrossRef
Spinal Canal Remodeling and Indirect Decompression of Contralateral Foraminal Stenosis After Endoscopic Posterolateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Pang Hung Wu, Eugene Tze-Chun Lau, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Giovanni Grasso, Il-Tae Jang Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 99. CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes Jwo-Luen Pao Neurospine.2023; 20(1): 80. CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Jerry E. Robinson, Neel Anand Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2023; 34(4): 643. 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
Saving Stabilizing Structure Treatment With Bilateral-Contralateral Decompression for Spinal Stenosis in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Dong Hyun Lee, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Jin Sub Hwang, Jun Yong Kim, Yong-Eun Cho, Sang Won Lee, Dong Chan Lee, Bang Sang Han, Sang Yeop Han Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 931. 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
The Influence of Spondylolisthesis Reduction on the Adjacent Lumbar Segment Tae-Hwan Park, Yunhee Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sum Kim, Young Rak Kim, Yong San Ko, Woon Tak Yuh, John M. Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim The Nerve.2023; 9(2): 91. CrossRef
Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study Sangseok Lee, Jin Woo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Heum-Dai Kwon, Subum Lee, Young San Ko, Pius Kim, Dae-Chul Cho Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1205. CrossRef
The Combined Effects of RhBMP-2 and Systemic RANKL Inhibitor in Patients With Bone Density Loss Undergoing Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Analysis With Propensity Score Matching Seungjun Ryu, Seon-Jin Yoon, Chang Kyu Lee, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Yoon Ha, Dong Ah Shin Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1186. 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;[Epub] 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
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
