Effect of the preoperative assessment of the anteroposterior diameters of the spinal canal and dural area on the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the degree of lumbar spinal stenosis by assessing the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter and dural area, determine the sensitivity of the anterior and posterior spinal canal diameter, dural area and dural occupying rate in predicting the postoperative efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for patients with single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis, and identify the corresponding indicators suggesting that OLIF surgery should not be performed. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of patients who had previously undergone OLIF surgery in our hospital, we included a total of 104 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had previously undergone single-stage surgery in our hospital. Three independent observers were employed to measure the anterior and posterior diameter of the spinal canal (AD, mm), dural area (CSA, mm(2)), the spinal canal area (SCA, mm(2)), and the ratio of the dural area to the spinal canal area (DM, %) at the disc level with the most severe stenosis on MRI. According to the values of AD and CSA in preoperative MRI, patients were divided into three groups: A, B, and C (Group A: AD > 12 and 100 < CSA ≤ 130, group B: Except A and C, group C: AD ≤ 10 and CSA ≤ 75). Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcome scores (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score, VAS score, modified Macnab standard) of 104 patients were statistically. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the preoperative and postoperative clinical correlation scores among the mild, moderate and severe lumbar spinal stenosis groups. The improvement rate of the post treatment JOA score, the difference between the preoperative and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard were compared pairwise. There was no statistical significance in the improvement rate of the post treatment JOA score, the difference between the preoperative and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard between Group A and Group B (P = 0.125, P = 0.620, P = 0.803). There were statistically significant differences between Group A and Group C and between Group B and Group C in the improvement rate of the JOA score, the difference in the pre- and postoperative VAS score, and the modified Macnab standard. The anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter and dural area are sensitive predictors of the postoperative efficacy of OLIF surgery for single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis. Moreover, when the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter was less than 6.545 mm and the dural area was less than 34.43 mm(2), the postoperative effect of OLIF surgery was poor. CONCLUSIONS: All the patients with mild, moderate, and severe lumbar spinal stenosis achieved curative effects after OLIF surgery. Patients with mild and moderate lumbar spinal stenosis had better curative effects, and there was no significant difference between them, while patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis had poor curative effects. Both the anteroposterior diameter of the spinal canal and the dural area of the spinal canal were sensitive in predicting the curative effect of OLIF surgery for single-stage lumbar spinal stenosis. When the anterior and posterior vertebral canal diameter was less than 6.545 mm and the dural area was less than 34.43 mm(2), the postoperative effect of OLIF surgery was poor.