Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies

From: Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference

Year

Country

Study design

Number of cases (OLIF/PLIF)

Age (years) (OLIF/PLIF)

Diagnosis of diseases

Follow-up (months) (OLIF/PLIF)

Closing indicators

Cen et al

2018

China

Retrospective

28/28

45.2/43.5

DLS

Mean 12

①③⑤⑥⑦

Li et al

2022

China

Retrospective

51/52

58.42 ± 2.63/57.90 ± 2.87

DLSS

Mean 12

①②⑥⑦⑧

Chen et al

2022

China

Retrospective

38/38

63.26 ± 6.31/64.42 ± 5.13

DLS

–

②③④⑤⑥⑦⑧

Cho et al

2021

Korea

Retrospective

28/31

69.7 ± 6.9/67.4 ± 7.6

DLS

OLIF(27.7 ± 21.7)

PLIF(34.9 ± 22.6)

①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑨

Du et al

2023

China

Retrospective

24/30

61.38 ± 6.79/60.83 ± 6.67

DLS

Mean 6

①③④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨

Kang et al

2022

Korea

Retrospective

46/42

65.04 ± 6.90/65.45 ± 7.95

LDDs

Mean 12

①②③⑤⑥⑦⑧

Li et al

2020

China

Retrospective

20/22

53.38 ± 4.19/53.62 ± 4.63

DLS

–

③④⑤⑥⑦⑨

Zhao et al

2021

China

Retrospective

52/44

63.47 ± 9.26/62.27 ± 9.08

LDDs

Mean 6

①③⑤⑥⑦

  1. ① VAS back pain ② VAS leg pain ③ Oswestry Disability Index ④ lumbar lordosis angle ⑤ Perioperative complications ⑥ Operative time ⑦ Blood loss
  2. ⑧ Hospital stay ⑨ Disc height