Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2297-4416
Original Article

Comparing OLIF Combined with Lateral Screw Fixation versus Minimally Invasive TLIF for Treating Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Shuo Li   *
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
,
Zhiyun Yang   *
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
,
Weishun Yan
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
,
Chaoming Da
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
,
Weimin Niu
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
,
Tao Qu
1   Department of Orthopedics, Gansu Provincial Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The present study aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with lateral screw fixation and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) for the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods Data regarding clinical and radiologic outcomes for single-level DLS treated using OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation or Mis-TLIF between November 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results Seventy-five patients with single-level DLS (≥2 years' follow-up) were included and divided into two groups according to the surgical method used: OLIF (n = 33) and Mis-TLIF (n = 42). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the OLIF group than that in the Mis-TLIF group. There were no significant differences in preoperative low back pain (LBP), leg pain (LP), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the two groups, although the OLIF group had significantly lower LBP VAS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Additionally, the LP VAS score was significantly lower in the Mis-TLIF group than that in the OLIF group at 1 month postoperatively, and the ODI of the OLIF group at 3 months postoperatively was significantly lower than that of the Mis-TLIF group. There was no significant difference in the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis angles between the two groups, whereas the postoperative surgical segmental lordosis angle and disk height (at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months) in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the Mis-TLIF group. Additionally, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (18.2% in the OLIF group vs. 11.9% in the Mis-TLIF group; p = 0.520).

Conclusion OLIF combined with lateral screw fixation yielded better clinical and radiologic outcomes than Mis-TLIF in patients with single-level DLS.

Keywords

degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis - minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - oblique lumbar interbody fusion - lateral screw fixation - complications

* Shuo Li and Zhiyun Yang contributed equally to this study and are the co-first authors.




Publication History

Received: 16 September 2023

Accepted: 28 March 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
01 April 2024

Article published online:
03 July 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Eismont FJ, Norton RP, Hirsch BP. Surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22 (04) 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ravindra VM, Senglaub SS, Rattani A. et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine J 2018; 8 (08) 784-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bydon M, Alvi MA, Goyal A. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: definition, natural history, conservative management, and surgical treatment. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2019; 30 (03) 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Watters III WC, Bono CM, Gilbert TJ. et al; North American Spine Society. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J 2009; 9 (07) 609-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rathbone J, Rackham M, Nielsen D. et al. A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). Eur Spine J 2023; 32 (06) 1911-1926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schnake KJ, Rappert D, Storzer B, Schreyer S, Hilber F, Mehren C. Lumbar fusion: indications and techniques. Orthopade 2019; 48 (01) 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 2015; 1 (01) 2-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jenkins NW, Parrish JM, Hrynewycz NM, Brundage TS, Singh K. Complications following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: incidence, independent risk factors, and clinical impact. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33 (05) E236-E240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997; 22 (06) 691-699 , discussion 700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P. Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine J 2012; 6 (02) 89-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Li XY, Wang YL, Yang S. et al. Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2023; 143 (09) 5657-5670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wang YL, Li XY, Liu L, Li SF, Han PF, Li XD. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 2023; 46 (01) 100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhang QY, Tan J, Huang K, Xie HQ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 (01) 802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wang J, Liu J, Hai Y, Zhang Y, Zhou L. OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg 2022; 9: 1014314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hung SF, Liao JC, Tsai TT. et al. Comparison of outcomes between indirect decompression of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and MIS-TLIF in one single-level lumbar spondylosis. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 12783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Li J, Chen Y, Wu H. et al. Can oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) create more lumbosacral lordosis in lumbar spine surgery than minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)?. Front Surg 2023; 9: 1063354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Deng C, Feng H, Ma X, Chen C, Mei J, Sun L. Comparing oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral screw fixation and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (OLIF-PETD) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar instability. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23 (01) 1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zhou T, Fan W, Gu Y, Che W, Zhang L, Wang Y. 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. Front Surg 2023; 9: 1049448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Akbary K, Quillo-Olvera J, Lin GX, Jo HJ, Kim JS. Outcomes of minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease with rheumatoid arthritis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2019; 80 (03) 162-168
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 He D, He W, Tian W. et al. Clinical and radiographic comparison of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with L4/5 grade-1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg 2023; 15 (06) 1477-1487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zhu HF, Fang XQ, Zhao FD. et al. Comparison of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease: a prospective cohort study. Spine 2022; 47 (06) E233-E242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Li HM, Zhang RJ, Shen CL. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. World Neurosurg 2019; 122: e627-e638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shimizu T, Fujibayashi S, Otsuki B, Murata K, Matsuda S. Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2021; 21 (06) 963-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lin GX, Akbary K, Kotheeranurak V. et al. Clinical and radiologic outcomes of direct versus indirect decompression with lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison analysis. World Neurosurg 2018; 119: e898-e909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sun WX, Liu HN, Chen MT, Lin YP, Wang HS, Chen BL. Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. EFORT Open Rev 2022; 7 (09) 663-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Champagne PO, Walsh C, Diabira J. et al. Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine J 2019; 13 (03) 450-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gao QY, Wei FL, Li T. et al. Oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9: 829426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zhou T, Gu Y. 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. J Orthop Surg Res 2023; 18 (01) 117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cai XY, Bian HM, Chen C, Ma XL, Yang Q. Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2022; 17 (01) 269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (15, Suppl): S26-S35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ge DH, Stekas ND, Varlotta CG. et al. Comparative analysis of two transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques: open TLIF versus Wiltse MIS TLIF. Spine 2019; 44 (09) E555-E560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, Rampersaud YR. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 24 (03) 416-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fujibayashi S, Hynes RA, Otsuki B, Kimura H, Takemoto M, Matsuda S. Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. Spine 2015; 40 (03) E175-E182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Woods KR, Billys JB, Hynes RA. Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. Spine J 2017; 17 (04) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chun SW, Lim CY, Kim K, Hwang J, Chung SG. The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2017; 17 (08) 1180-1191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mehren C, Mayer HM, Zandanell C, Siepe CJ, Korge A. The oblique anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine provides access to the lumbar spine with few early complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (09) 2020-2027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Abe K, Orita S, Mannoji C. et al. Perioperative complications in 155 patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery: perspectives and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey. Spine 2017; 42 (01) 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Li JX, Phan K, Mobbs R. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion: technical aspects, operative outcomes, and complications. World Neurosurg 2017; 98: 113-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Davis TT, Hynes RA, Fung DA. et al. Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs in the lateral position: an anatomic study. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21 (05) 785-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Tao Y, Huang C, Li F, Chen Q. Magnetic resonance imaging study of oblique corridor and trajectory to L1-L5 intervertebral disks in lateral position. World Neurosurg 2020; 134: e616-e623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Razzouk J, Ramos O, Mehta S. et al. CT-based analysis of oblique lateral interbody fusion from L1 to L5: location of incision, feasibility of safe corridor approach, and influencing factors. Eur Spine J 2023; 32 (06) 1947-1952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar