Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimally Invasive Surgery: Lateral Approach Interbody Fusion: Results and Review

Youssef, Jim A., McAfee, Paul C., Patty, Catherine A., Raley, Erin, DeBauche, Spencer, Shucosky, Erin, Chotikul, Liana·2010·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of patients treated at 2 institutions with anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal approach, and review of literature. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcomes from historical literature and from a retrospectively compiled database of patients having undergone anterior interbody fusions performed through a lateral approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A paucity of published literature exists describing outcomes following lateral approach fusion surgery. METHODS: Patients treated with extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) were identified through retrospective chart review. Treatment variables included operating room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, and fusion rate. A literature review, using the National Center for Biotechnology Information databases PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar, yielded 14 peer-reviewed articles reporting outcomes scoring, complications, fusion status, long-term follow-up, and radiographic assessments related to XLIF. Published XLIF results were summarized and evaluated with current study data. RESULTS: A total of 84 XLIF patients were included in the current cohort analysis. OR time, EBL, and length of hospital stay averaged 199 minutes, 155 mL, and 2.6 days, respectively, and perioperative and postoperative complication rates were 2.4% and 6.1%. Mean follow-up was 15.7 months. Sixty-eight patients showed evidence of solid arthrodesis and no subsidence on computed tomography and flexion/extension radiographs. Results were within the ranges of those in the literature. Literature review identified reports of significant improvements in clinical outcomes scores, radiographic measures, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Current data corroborates and contributes to the existing body of literature describing XLIF outcomes. Procedures are generally performed with short OR times, minimal EBL, and few complications. Patients recover quickly, requiring minimal hospital stay, although transient hip/thigh pain and/or weakness is common. Long-term outcomes are generally favorable, with maintained improvements in patient-reported pain and function scores as well as radiographic parameters, including high rates of fusion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e3182023438

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Metadata

Authors
Youssef, J. A., McAfee, P. C., Patty, C. A., Raley, E., DeBauche, S., Shucosky, E., & Chotikul, L.
Venue
Spine
Published
2010-12
Volume
35
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S302-S311
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028852676
Cited by
279
References
22
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimally Invasive Surgery: Lateral Approach Interbody Fusion: Results and Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182023438
The paper
Youssef, J. A., McAfee, P. C., Patty, C. A., Raley, E., DeBauche, S., Shucosky, E., & Chotikul, L. (2010). Minimally Invasive Surgery: Lateral Approach Interbody Fusion: Results and Review. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3182023438

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.