RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2297-4416
Comparing OLIF Combined with Lateral Screw Fixation versus Minimally Invasive TLIF for Treating Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Funding None.![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/jnlsa/EFirst/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-a-2297-4416_23sepoa0195-1.jpg)
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.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 16. September 2023
Angenommen: 28. März 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
01. April 2024
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. Juli 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 6 Schnake KJ, Rappert D, Storzer B, Schreyer S, Hilber F, Mehren C. Lumbar fusion: indications and techniques. Orthopade 2019; 48 (01) 50-58
- 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
- 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
- 9 Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997; 22 (06) 691-699 , discussion 700
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 30 Foley KT, Holly LT, Schwender JD. Minimally invasive lumbar fusion. Spine 2003; 28 (15, Suppl): S26-S35
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 38 Li JX, Phan K, Mobbs R. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion: technical aspects, operative outcomes, and complications. World Neurosurg 2017; 98: 113-123
- 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
- 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
- 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